François Durand

Élie de Panafieu, François Durand, Jérôme Lang

The communication complexity of a voting rule is the worst-case number of bits that n voters must transmit to a central authority under the most efficient elicitation protocol in an election with m candidates. We study the communication complexity of Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV). Conitzer and Sandholm [2005] established an upper bound of O(n (log m)${}^2$), but did not provide a matching lower bound beyond $Ω$(n log m). We resolve this open problem by raising the lower bound to $Ω$(n (log m)${}^2$) using the fooling set technique, thereby showing that the communication complexity of IRV is $Θ$(n (log m)${}^2$). We further show that this complexity drops to $Θ$(n log m) under the single-peakedness restriction, and that both the IRV-Average variant and Single Transferable Vote (STV), the multiwinner extension of IRV, have the same asymptotic communication complexity as IRV.

François Durand, Élie de Panafieu, Guillem Perarnau

We study the limit CM rate of single-winner voting rules under Impartial Culture, defined as the probability that a preference profile is coalitionally manipulable in the limit of large electorates. For m = 3 candidates, Lepelley and Valognes [1999] derived a closed-form expression for Plurality with Runoff, or equivalently Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV), and showed that its limit CM rate is strictly below 1. This is remarkable because Kim and Roush [1996] established a limit of 1 for several major rules, including Maximin and all positional scoring rules except Veto. In this paper, we generalize the result of Lepelley and Valognes to any number of candidates m $\ge$ 4. We show that Plurality with Runoff has a limit CM rate equal to 1 for all m $\ge$ 4, whereas IRV retains a limit CM rate strictly below 1. To this end, we rely on the notion of Super Condorcet Winner, recently introduced by Durand [2025], which yields an upper bound on the CM rate of IRV. We prove that this bound is asymptotically tight and compute the probability that a Super Condorcet Winner exists, thereby obtaining the exact limit CM rate of IRV.

Theo Delemazure, François Durand, Fabien Mathieu

Many decision problems cannot be solved exactly and use several estimation algorithms that assign scores to the different available options. The estimation errors can have various correlations, from low (e.g. between two very different approaches) to high (e.g. when using a given algorithm with different hyperparameters). Most aggregation rules would suffer from this diversity of correlations. In this article, we propose different aggregation rules that take correlations into account, and we compare them to naive rules in various experiments based on synthetic data. Our results show that when sufficient information is known about the correlations between errors, a maximum likelihood aggregation should be preferred. Otherwise, typically with limited training data, we recommend a method that we call Embedded Voting (EV).

Pouya Agheli, Tugce Kobal, François Durand et al.

We investigate the multiuser scheduling problem in multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) systems using orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) and hybrid beamforming in which a base station (BS) communicates with multiple users over millimeter wave (mmWave) channels in the downlink. Improved scheduling is critical for enhancing spectral efficiency and the long-term performance of the system from the perspective of proportional fairness (PF) metric in hybrid beamforming systems due to its limited multiplexing gain. Our objective is to maximize PF by properly designing the analog and digital precoders within the hybrid beamforming and selecting the users subject to the number of radio frequency (RF) chains. Leveraging the characteristics of mmWave channels, we apply a two-timescale protocol. On a long timescale, we assign an analog beam to each user. Scheduling the users and designing the digital precoder are done accordingly on a short timescale. To conduct scheduling, we propose combinatorial solutions, such as greedy and sorting algorithms, followed by a machine learning (ML) approach. Our numerical results highlight the trade-off between the performance and complexity of the proposed approaches. Consequently, we show that the choice of approach depends on the specific criteria within a given scenario.