Complexity of Judgment Aggregation

We analyse the computational complexity of three problems in judgment aggregation: (1) computing a collective judgment from a profile of individual judgments (the winner determination problem); (2) deciding whether a given agent can influence the outcome of a judgment aggregation procedure in her favour by reporting insincere judgments (the strategic manipulation problem); and (3) deciding whether a given judgment aggregation scenario is guaranteed to result in a logically consistent outcome, independently from what the judgments supplied by the individuals are (the problem of the safety of the agenda). We provide results both for specific aggregation procedures (the quota rules, the premisebased procedure, and a distance-based procedure) and for classes of aggregation procedures characterised in terms of fundamental axioms

Complexity Results for Manipulation, Bribery and Control of the Kemeny Judgment Aggregation Procedure

We study the computational complexity of several scenarios of strategic behavior for the Kemeny procedure in the setting of judgment aggregation. In particular, we investigate (1) manipulation, where an individual aims to achieve a better group outcome by reporting an insincere individual opinion, (2) bribery, where an external agent aims to achieve an outcome with certain properties by bribing a number of individuals, and (3) control (by adding or deleting issues), where an external agent aims to achieve an outcome with certain properties by influencing the set of issues in the judgment aggregation situation. We show that determining whether these types of strategic behavior are possible (and if so, computing a policy for successful strategic behavior) is complete for the second level of the Polynomial Hierarchy. That is, we show that these problems are $\Sigma^p_2$-complete

Approximation and Hardness of Shift-Bribery

In the Shift-Bribery problem we are given an election, a preferred candidate, and the costs of shifting this preferred candidate up the voters' preference orders. The goal is to find such a set of shifts that ensures that the preferred candidate wins the election. We give the first polynomial-time approximation scheme for the Shift-Bribery problem for the case of positional scoring rules, and for the Copeland rule we show strong inapproximability results.Comment: An extended abstract of this work appears in AAAI'1

Collective decision-making with goals

Des agents devant prendre une décision collective sont souvent motivés par des buts individuels. Dans ces situations, deux aspects clés doivent être abordés : sélectionner une alternative gagnante à partir des voix des agents et s'assurer que les agents ne manipulent pas le résultat. Cette thèse étudie l'agrégation et la dimension stratégique des décisions collectives lorsque les agents utilisent un langage représenté de manière compacte. Nous étudions des langages de type logique : de la logique propositionnelle aux CP-nets généralisés, en passant par la logique temporelle linéaire (LTL). Notre principale contribution est l'introduction d'un cadre de vote sur les buts, dans lequel les agents soumettent des buts individuels exprimés comme des formules de la logique propositionnelle. Les fonctions d'agrégation classiques issues du vote, de l'agrégation de jugements et de la fusion de croyances sont adaptées et étudiées de manière axiomatique et computationnelle. Les propriétés axiomatiques connues dans la littérature sur la théorie du choix social sont généralisées à ce nouveau type d'entrée, ainsi que les problèmes de complexité visant à déterminer le résultat du vote. Une autre contribution importante est l'étude de l'agrégation des CP-nets généralisés, c'est-à-dire des CP-nets où la précondition de l'énoncé de préférence est une formule propositionnelle. Nous utilisons différents agrégateurs pour obtenir un classement collectif des résultats possibles. Grâce à cette thèse, deux axes de recherche sont ainsi reliés : l'agrégation des CP-nets classiques et la généralisation des CP-nets à des préconditions incomplètes. Nous contribuons également à l'étude du comportement stratégique dans des contextes de prise de décision collective et de théorie des jeux. Le cadre du vote basé sur les buts est de nouveau étudié sous l'hypothèse que les agents peuvent décider de mentir sur leur but s'ils obtiennent ainsi un meilleur résultat. L'accent est mis sur trois règles de vote majoritaires qui se révèlent manipulables. Par conséquent, nous étudions des restrictions à la fois sur le langage des buts et sur les stratégies des agents en vue d'obtenir des résultats de votes non manipulables. Nous présentons par ailleurs une extension stratégique d'un modèle récent de diffusion d'opinion sur des réseaux d'influence. Dans les jeux d'influence définis ici, les agents ont comme but des formules en LTL et ils peuvent choisir d'utiliser leur pouvoir d'influence pour s'assurer que leur but est atteint. Des solutions classiques telles que la stratégie gagnante sont étudiées pour les jeux d'influence, en relation avec la structure du réseau et les buts des agents. Enfin, nous introduisons une nouvelle classe de concurrent game structures (CGS) dans laquelle les agents peuvent avoir un contrôle partagé sur un ensemble de variables propositionnelles. De telles structures sont utilisées pour interpréter des formules de logique temporelle en temps alternés (ATL), grâce auxquelles on peut exprimer l'existence d'une stratégie gagnante pour un agent dans un jeu itéré (comme les jeux d'influence mentionnés ci-dessus). Le résultat principal montre qu'un CGS avec contrôle partagé peut être représenté comme un CGS avec contrôle exclusif. En conclusion, cette thèse contribue au domaine de la prise de décision collective en introduisant un nouveau cadre de vote basé sur des buts propositionnels. Elle présente une étude de l'agrégation des CP-nets généralisés et une extension d'un cadre de diffusion d'opinion avec des agents rationnels qui utilisent leur pouvoir d'influence. Une réduction du contrôle partagé à un contrôle exclusif dans les CGS pour l'interprétation des logiques du raisonnement stratégique est également proposée. Par le biais de langages logiques divers, les agents peuvent ainsi exprimer buts et préférences sur la décision à prendre, et les propriétés souhaitées pour le processus de décision peuvent en être garanties.Agents having to take a collective decision are often motivated by individual goals. In such scenarios, two key aspects need to be addressed. The first is defining how to select a winning alternative from the expressions of the agents. The second is making sure that agents will not manipulate the outcome. Agents should also be able to state their goals in a way that is expressive, yet not too burdensome. This dissertation studies the aggregation and the strategic component of multi-agent collective decisions where the agents use a compactly represented language. The languages we study are all related to logic: from propositional logic, to generalized CP-nets and linear temporal logic (LTL). Our main contribution is the introduction of the framework of goal-based voting, where agents submit individual goals expressed as formulas of propositional logic. Classical aggregation functions from voting, judgment aggregation, and belief merging are adapted to this setting and studied axiomatically and computationally. Desirable axiomatic properties known in the literature of social choice theory are generalized to this new type of propositional input, as well as the standard complexity problems aimed at determining the result. Another important contribution is the study of the aggregation of generalized CP-nets coming from multiple agents, i.e., CP-nets where the precondition of the preference statement is a propositional formula. We use different aggregators to obtain a collective ordering of the possible outcomes. Thanks to this thesis, two lines of research are thus bridged: the one on the aggregation of complete CP-nets, and the one on the generalization of CP-nets to incomplete preconditions. We also contribute to the study of strategic behavior in both collective decision-making and game-theoretic settings. The framework of goal-based voting is studied again under the assumption that agents can now decide to submit an untruthful goal if by doing so they can get a better outcome. The focus is on three majoritarian voting rules which are found to be manipulable. Therefore, we study restrictions on both the language of the goals and on the strategies allowed to the agents to discover islands of strategy-proofness. We also present a game-theoretic extension of a recent model of opinion diffusion over networks of influence. In the influence games defined here, agents hold goals expressed as formulas of LTL and they can choose whether to use their influence power to make sure that their goal is satisfied. Classical solution concepts such as weak dominance and winning strategy are studied for influence games, in relation to the structure of the network and the goals of the agents. Finally, we introduce a novel class of concurrent game structures (CGS) in which agents can have shared control over a set of propositional variables. Such structures are used for the interpretation of formulas of alternating-time temporal logic, thanks to which we can express the existence of a winning strategy for an agent in a repeated game (as, for instance, the influence games mentioned above). The main result shows by means of a clever construction that a CGS with shared control can be represented as a CGS with exclusive control. In conclusion, this thesis provides a valuable contribution to the field of collective decision-making by introducing a novel framework of voting based on individual propositional goals, it studies for the first time the aggregation of generalized CP-nets, it extends a framework of opinion diffusion by modelling rational agents who use their influence power as they see fit, and it provides a reduction of shared to exclusive control in CGS for the interpretation of logics of strategic reasoning. By using different logical languages, agents can thus express their goals and preferences over the decision to be taken, and desirable properties of the decision process can be ensured

Task Force on Political Science, Electoral Rules, and Democratic Governance

Electoral rules help to make democracy work. Small variations in them influence the type of democracy that develops. The field of political science has defined the study of why and how this happens. Political scientists have contributed to the world of electoral systems as scientists and as engineers. Taking stock of recent scientific research, this report shows that context modifies the effects of electoral rules on political outcomes in specific and systematic ways. It explores how electoral rules shape party systems, the inclusion of women and minorities, the depth and nature of political competition, and patterns of redistribution and regulation. It considers institutional innovations that could promote political equality. Finally, the report describes the diverse ways that political scientists are producing an impact on the world by sharing and applying their knowledge of the consequences of electoral rules and global trends in reform

Egalitarian Judgment Aggregation

Egalitarian considerations play a central role in many areas of social choice theory. Applications of egalitarian principles range from ensuring everyone gets an equal share of a cake when deciding how to divide it, to guaranteeing balance with respect to gender or ethnicity in committee elections. Yet, the egalitarian approach has received little attention in judgment aggregation -- a powerful framework for aggregating logically interconnected issues. We make the first steps towards filling that gap. We introduce axioms capturing two classical interpretations of egalitarianism in judgment aggregation and situate these within the context of existing axioms in the pertinent framework of belief merging. We then explore the relationship between these axioms and several notions of strategyproofness from social choice theory at large. Finally, a novel egalitarian judgment aggregation rule stems from our analysis; we present complexity results concerning both outcome determination and strategic manipulation for that rule.Comment: Extended version of paper in proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 202