PREFERENCES: OPTIMIZATION, IMPORTANCE LEARNING AND STRATEGIC BEHAVIORS

Preferences are fundamental to decision making and play an important role in artificial intelligence. Our research focuses on three group of problems based on the preference formalism Answer Set Optimization (ASO): preference aggregation problems such as computing optimal (near optimal) solutions, strategic behaviors in preference representation, and learning ranks (weights) for preferences. In the first group of problems, of interest are optimal outcomes, that is, outcomes that are optimal with respect to the preorder defined by the preference rules. In this work, we consider computational problems concerning optimal outcomes. We propose, implement and study methods to compute an optimal outcome; to compute another optimal outcome once the first one is found; to compute an optimal outcome that is similar to (or, dissimilar from) a given candidate outcome; and to compute a set of optimal answer sets each significantly different from the others. For the decision version of several of these problems we establish their computational complexity. For the second topic, the strategic behaviors such as manipulation and bribery have received much attention from the social choice community. We study these concepts for preference formalisms that identify a set of optimal outcomes rather than a single winning outcome, the case common to social choice. Such preference formalisms are of interest in the context of combinatorial domains, where preference representations are only approximations to true preferences, and seeking a single optimal outcome runs a risk of missing the one which is optimal with respect to the actual preferences. In this work, we assume that preferences may be ranked (differ in importance), and we use the Pareto principle adjusted to the case of ranked preferences as the preference aggregation rule. For two important classes of preferences, representing the extreme ends of the spectrum, we provide characterizations of situations when manipulation and bribery is possible, and establish the complexity of the problem to decide that. Finally, we study the problem of learning the importance of individual preferences in preference profiles aggregated by the ranked Pareto rule or positional scoring rules. We provide a polynomial-time algorithm that finds a ranking of preferences such that the ranked profile correctly decided all the examples, whenever such a ranking exists. We also show that the problem to learn a ranking maximizing the number of correctly decided examples is NP-hard. We obtain similar results for the case of weighted profiles

The Complexity of Manipulating kk-Approval Elections

An important problem in computational social choice theory is the complexity of undesirable behavior among agents, such as control, manipulation, and bribery in election systems. These kinds of voting strategies are often tempting at the individual level but disastrous for the agents as a whole. Creating election systems where the determination of such strategies is difficult is thus an important goal. An interesting set of elections is that of scoring protocols. Previous work in this area has demonstrated the complexity of misuse in cases involving a fixed number of candidates, and of specific election systems on unbounded number of candidates such as Borda. In contrast, we take the first step in generalizing the results of computational complexity of election misuse to cases of infinitely many scoring protocols on an unbounded number of candidates. Interesting families of systems include $k$-approval and $k$-veto elections, in which voters distinguish $k$ candidates from the candidate set. Our main result is to partition the problems of these families based on their complexity. We do so by showing they are polynomial-time computable, NP-hard, or polynomial-time equivalent to another problem of interest. We also demonstrate a surprising connection between manipulation in election systems and some graph theory problems

Computational aspects of voting: a literature survey

Preference aggregation is a topic of study in different fields such as philosophy, mathematics, economics and political science. Recently, computational aspects of preference aggregation have gained especial attention and “computational politics” has emerged as a marked line of research in computer science with a clear concentration on voting protocols. The field of voting systems, rooted in social choice theory, has expanded notably in both depth and breadth in the last few decades. A significant amount of this growth comes from studies concerning the computational aspects of voting systems. This thesis comprehensively reviews the work on voting systems (from a computing perspective) by listing, classifying and comparing the results obtained by different researchers in the field. This survey covers a wide range of new and historical results yet provides a profound commentary on related work as individual studies and in relation to other related work and to the field in general. The deliverables serve as an overview where students and novice researchers in the field can start and also as a depository that can be referred to when searching for specific results. A comprehensive literature survey of the computational aspects of voting is a task that has not been undertaken yet and is initially realized here. Part of this research was dedicated to creating a web-depository that contains material and references related to the topic based on the survey. The purpose was to create a dynamic version of the survey that can be updated with latest findings and as an online practical reference

The Ethics of Legislative Vote Trading

It is argued in this article that legislative vote trading by representatives is both ethically permissible and may be ethically required in many cases. This conclusion is an implication of a thin, general account of representation that requires representatives to vote on the basis of the perceived preferences or interests of their constituents. These special duties arise from a thin account of representation and create a weak, defeasible duty for representatives to engage in what they believe will be beneficial vote trades. After establishing this claim, the article considers two objections to this duty. One is based on equating legislative vote trading with corruption, and the other argues that logrolling violates the ‘duty of civility’. Neither objection undermines the main claim that there is a weak duty to engage in logrolling. Nevertheless, the implications of this duty may be troubling for other reasons

Games Commissions Play: 2x2 Games of International Securities Regulation

In recent years, the internationalization of securities markets has accelerated in pace and broadened in scope Faced with the growing complexity of modern stock markets, national securities regulators have recognized the need for greater cooperation, and a variety of efforts to achieve international cooperation in securities regulation is currently under way. The reality of today\u27s stock markets, however, is one of fierce international competition, and securities regulators thus face two problems in the international context. The first is the fundamental incentive not to cooperate with their colleagues to the extent that such cooperation might undermine their country\u27s competitive position in the international markets. The second problem is that adhering to the competitive dynamics may, in fact, operate to the detriment of their country\u27s interests. This situation is often characterized in the form of a Prisoners\u27 Dilemma. This Article suggests a new, broader perspective for looking at international securities regulation. It argues that in analyzing international securities regulation, the Prisoners\u27 Dilemma is a useful paradigm in only a few of the problems that arise in practice. In many others, other 2x2 game models better depict the conflictual situation that countries face and help to assess the prospects of international cooperation. The Article offers a unique integration of insights coming from three different sources: theories of corporate governance and securities regulation, standard game theory modeling, and international relations and regime theory analysis. The Article examines three fundamental subjects of securities regulation-disclosure, anti-fraud, and insider trading-and transforms states\u27 policies into ordinal preference orders in 2x2 games. The emphasis throughout is on regulatory cooperation-on the problems securities regulators face in reaching sustainable agreement and on the international regimes that may facilitate cooperation

A Generalized Probabilistic Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem

Friedgut, Kalai, and Nisan have proved that social choice functions can be successfully manipulated by random preference reordering with non- negligible probability. However, their results require two restrictions: the social choice function must be neutral, and the election must have at most 3 alternatives. In this thesis we focus on removing the latter restriction and generalizing the results to elections with any number of candidates. We also provide a survey of related work analyzing and comparing results from a number of authors

Iterative Voting, Control and Sentiment Analysis

In multi-agent systems agents often need to take a collective decision based on the preferences of individuals. A voting rule is used to decide which decision to take, mapping the agents' preferences over the possible candidate decisions into a winning decision for the collection of agents. In these kind of scenarios acting strategically can be seen in two opposite way. On one hand it may be desirable that agents do not have any incentive to act strategically. That is, to misreport their preferences in order to influence the result of the voting rule in their favor or acting on the structure of the election to change the outcome. On the other hand manipulation can be used to improve the quality of the outcome by enlarging the consensus of the winner. These two different scenarios are studied in this thesis. The first one by modeling and describing a natural form of control named ``replacement control'' and characterizing for several voting rules its computational complexity. The second scenario is studied in the form of iterative voting frameworks where individuals are allowed to change their preferences to change the outcome of the election. Computational social choice techniques can be used in very different scenarios. This work reports a first attempt to introduce the use of voting procedures in the field of sentiment analysis. In this area computer scientists extract the opinion of the community about a specific item. This opinion is extracted aggregating the opinion expressed by each individual which leaves a text in a blog or social network about the given item. We studied and proposed a new aggregation method which can improve performances of sentiment analysis, this new technique is a new variance of a well-known voting rule called Borda

Solving hard problems in election systems

An interesting problem in the field of computational social choice theory is that of elections, in which a winner or set of winners is to be deduced from preferences among a collection of agents, in a way that attempts to maximize the collective well-being of the agents. Besides their obvious use in political science, elections are also used computationally, such as in multiagent systems, in which different agents may have different beliefs and preferences and must reach an agreeable decision. Because the purpose of voting is to gain an understanding of a collection of actual preferences, dishonesty in an election system is often harmful to the welfare of the voters as a whole. Different forms of dishonesty can be performed by the voters (manipulation), by an outside agent affecting the voters (bribery), or by the chair, or administrator, of an election (control). The Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem shows that in all reasonable election systems, manipulation, or strategic voting, is always inevitable in some cases. Bartholdi, Tovey, and Trick counter by arguing that if finding such a manipulation is NP-hard, then manipulation by computationally-limited agents should not pose a significant threat. However, more recent work has exploited the fact that NP-hardness is only a worst-case measure of complexity, and has shown that some election systems that are NP-hard to manipulate may in fact be easy to manipulate under some reasonable assumptions. We evaluate, both theoretically and empirically, the complexity, worst-case and otherwise, of manipulating, bribing, and controlling elections. Our focus is particularly on scoring protocols. In doing so, we gain an understanding of how these election systems work by discovering what makes manipulation, bribery, and control easy or hard. This allows us to discover the strengths and weaknesses of scoring protocols, and gain an understanding of what properties of election systems are desirable or undesirable. One approach we have used to do this is relating the problems of interest in election systems to problems of known complexity, as well as to problems with known algorithms and heuristics, particularly Satisfiability and Partition. This approach can help us gain an understanding of computational social choice problems in which little is known about the complexity or potential algorithms. Among other results, we show how certain parameters and properties of scoring protocols can make elections easy or hard to manipulate. We find that the empirical complexity of manipulation in some cases have unusual behaviors for its complexity class. For example, it is found that in the case of manipulating the Borda election of unweighted voters with an unbounded candidate cardinality, the encoding of this problem to Satisfiability performs especially well near the boundary cases of this problem and for unsatisfiable instances, both results contrary to the normal behavior of NP-complete problems. Although attempts have been made to design fair election systems with certain properties, another dilemma that this has given rise to is the existence of election systems in which it is hard to elect the winners, at least in the worst case. Two notable election systems in which determining the winners are hard are Dodgson and Young. We evaluate the problem of finding the winners empirically, to extend these complexity results away from the worst case, and determine whether the worst-case complexity of these hard winner problems is truly a computational barrier. We find that, like most NP-complete problems such as Satisfiability, many instances of interest in finding winners of hard election systems are still relatively simple. We confirm that indeed, like Satisfiability, the hard worst-case results occur only in rare circumstances. We also find an interesting complexity disparity between the related problems of finding the Dodgson or Young score of a candidate, and that of finding the set of Dodgson or Young winners. Surprisingly, it appears empirically easier for one to find the set of all winners in a Dodgson or Young election than to score a single candidate in either election

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