| paper | d4-conf-ecai-2016-0031 |
| authors | — |
| venue | ? |
| filed under | unclassified |
| judged by | gpt-6-luna / xhigh (triple__luna__xhigh__c6r1) |
| judge confidence | high |
| authors would recognise it | unclear |
The paper presents a computational algorithm, but it has no numbered Theorem, Lemma, Corollary, or Proposition asserting a computational result. The proponent therefore supplied no eligible anchor, and the opponent correctly identifies that the natural mass-transfer question alone cannot meet the named-result requirement.
fails bit a — no named computational result to mirror
No result qualifies as an anchor under the required numbered-result criterion; the paper's branch-and-bound algorithm and benchmark results remain unanchored.
I don’t see a qualifying anchor in the supplied paper. It has no numbered Theorem, Lemma, Corollary, or Proposition asserting a computational result. The closest candidates are the prose claim in Section 2 that exact IRV margins are NP-hard, and the empirical results in Tables 3–5. Neither is a numbered result of the required kind. The cited Bartholdi–Orlin hardness result concerns constructive manipulation, and is cited from earlier work rather than stated as a numbered result here.
A continuous IRV margin is easy to describe, but presenting it as a mirror of one of the paper’s named results would violate your anchor requirement. So the strongest honest positive case under that requirement is that this paper offers no eligible anchor.
The proponent raises no continuous mirror, so there is no anchor to defeat. Their narrow point is right: this paper has definitions, algorithms, and benchmark results, but no numbered theorem, lemma, or corollary asserting the complexity of a computational problem. Its central contribution is a branch-and-bound algorithm evaluated on election instances; the NP-hardness it mentions is attributed to earlier work. Under the requested anchor standard, that is the strongest case against treating this paper as a worthwhile mirror. [The paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.04885)
That case has a limit: it does not show that a continuous IRV margin is incoherent or uninteresting. Minimizing transferred mass to change the winner is a natural question. It shows that the proponent supplied no named result to anchor that question to in this paper. The argument against a mirror is therefore strong on the assignment’s criterion, but weak as a claim that no worthwhile continuous IRV question exists.
The adversarial triple: the proponent anchors on up to three named results; the opponent sees that case and must defeat every anchor; the judge decides which case convinced it. These are the pipeline’s own outputs, generated by tools/triple_run.py — no human edited them. The paper’s own text is not reproduced here beyond the quoted statement above.