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.publishedVersio

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

Vers des modes de scrutin moins manipulables

We study coalitional manipulation of voting systems: can a subset of voters, by voting strategically, elect a candidate they all prefer to the candidate who would have won if all voters had voted truthfully? From a theoretical point of view, we develop a formalism which makes it possible to study all voting systems, whether the ballots are orders of preference on the candidates (ordinal systems), ratings or approval values (cardinal systems), or even more general objects. We show that for almost all classical voting systems, their manipulability can be strictly reduced by adding a preliminary test aiming to elect the Condorcet winner if there is one. For the other voting systems, we define the generalized Condorcification which leads to similar results. Then we define the notion of decomposable culture, an assumption of which the probabilistic independence of voters is a special case. Under this assumption, we prove that, for each voting system, there exists a voting system which is ordinal, shares certain properties with the original voting system, and is at most as manipulable. Thus, the search for a voting system of minimal manipulability (in a class of reasonable systems) can be restricted to those which are ordinal and satisfy the Condorcet criterion. In order to allow everyone to examine these phenomena in practice, we present SVVAMP, a Python package of our own dedicated to the study of voting systems and their manipulability. Then we use it to compare the coalitional manipulability of various voting systems in several types of cultures, i.e. probabilistic models that generate populations of voters equipped with random preferences. We then complete the analysis with elections from real experiments. Finally, we determine the voting systems with minimal manipulability for very low values of the number of voters and of the number of candidates, and we compare them with the classical voting systems of the literature. In general, we establish that Borda's method, Range voting, and Approval voting are particularly manipulable. Conversely, we show the excellent resistance to manipulation of the system called IRV, also known as STV, and of its variant Condorcet-IRV.Nous étudions la manipulation par coalition des modes de scrutin: est-ce qu'un sous-ensemble des électeurs, en votant de façon stratégique, peut faire élire un candidat qu'ils préfèrent tous au candidat qui aurait été vainqueur si tous les électeurs avaient voté sincèrement? D'un point de vue théorique, nous développons un formalisme qui permet d'étudier tous les modes de scrutin, que les bulletins soient des ordres de préférences sur les candidats (systèmes ordinaux), des notes ou des valeurs d'approbation (systèmes cardinaux) ou des objets encore plus généraux. Nous montrons que pour la quasi-totalité des modes de scrutin classiques, on peut réduire strictement leur manipulabilité en ajoutant un test préliminaire visant à élire le vainqueur de Condorcet s'il en existe un. Pour les autres modes de scrutin, nous définissons la condorcification généralisée qui permet d'obtenir des résultats similaires. Puis nous définissons la notion de culture décomposable, une hypothèse dont l'indépendance probabiliste des électeurs est un cas particulier. Sous cette hypothèse, nous prouvons que, pour tout mode de scrutin, il existe un mode de scrutin qui est ordinal, qui partage certaines propriétés avec le mode de scrutin original et qui est au plus aussi manipulable. Ainsi, la recherche d'un mode de scrutin de manipulabilité minimale (dans une classe de systèmes raisonnables) peut être restreinte à ceux qui sont ordinaux et vérifient le critère de Condorcet. Afin de permettre à tous d'examiner ces phénomènes en pratique, nous présentons SVVAMP, un package Python de notre cru dédié à l'étude des modes de scrutin et de leur manipulabilité. Puis nous l'utilisons pour comparer la manipulabilité par coalition de divers modes de scrutin dans plusieurs types de cultures, c'est-à-dire des modèles probabilistes permettant de générer des populations d'électeurs munis de préférences aléatoires. Nous complétons ensuite l'analyse avec des élections issues d'expériences réelles. Enfin, nous déterminons les modes de scrutin de manipulabilité minimale pour de très faibles valeurs du nombre d'électeurs et du nombre de candidats et nous les comparons avec les modes de scrutin classiques. De manière générale, nous établissons que la méthode de Borda, le vote par notation et le vote par assentiment sont particulièrement manipulables. À l'inverse, nous montrons l'excellente résistance à la manipulation du système appelé VTI, également connu par son acronyme anglophone STV ou IRV, et de sa variante Condorcet-VTI

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

Multi-Winner Voting with Approval Preferences

From fundamental concepts and results to recent advances in computational social choice, this open access book provides a thorough and in-depth look at multi-winner voting based on approval preferences. The main focus is on axiomatic analysis, algorithmic results and several applications that are relevant in artificial intelligence, computer science and elections of any kind. What is the best way to select a set of candidates for a shortlist, for an executive committee, or for product recommendations? Multi-winner voting is the process of selecting a fixed-size set of candidates based on the preferences expressed by the voters. A wide variety of decision processes in settings ranging from politics (parliamentary elections) to the design of modern computer applications (collaborative filtering, dynamic Q&A platforms, diversity in search results, etc.) share the problem of identifying a representative subset of alternatives. The study of multi-winner voting provides the principled analysis of this task. Approval-based committee voting rules (in short: ABC rules) are multi-winner voting rules particularly suitable for practical use. Their usability is founded on the straightforward form in which the voters can express preferences: voters simply have to differentiate between approved and disapproved candidates. Proposals for ABC rules are numerous, some dating back to the late 19th century while others have been introduced only very recently. This book explains and discusses these rules, highlighting their individual strengths and weaknesses. With the help of this book, the reader will be able to choose a suitable ABC voting rule in a principled fashion, participate in, and be up to date with the ongoing research on this topic

Collective decision-making under the influence of bribers and temporal constraints

Jo estudio la connexió entre la corrupció i les característiques estructurals dels parlaments: nombre de seients, el nombre de partits representats, i regles de decisió adoptades. Amb l'aplicació d'enfocaments analítics i computacionals, a més de simulacions, mostro que el nombre mitjà de diputats que han de ser subornats disminueix a mesura que el nombre de partits augmenta, de manera que el suborn se sent encoratjat per un nombre cada vegada més gran de parts. També investigo dues formes en que pot afectar el temps a la presa de decisions. En primer lloc, suggereixo un procediment de votació iteratiu en el que el retard en prendre una decisió és costós. Amb dos electors, dues opcions i un ordre de votació fix, demostro que en l’únic equilibri perfecte en subjocs, l’elector que vota primer, obté la seva opció preferida a l'inici del procediment. Si l'ordre s'inverteix en algun moment, identifico la condició sota la qual el votant que vota segon pot obtenir la seva opció preferida al principi. En segon lloc, proposo un altre procediment de votació iterativa, permetent que els votants canvien els seus vots, però ara amb una data límit: una etapa que, si no s'ha pres una decisió, els resultats de la votació són pitjors. Mostro que (i) si hi ha temps suficient perquè tots els votants canviïn el seu vot, es prendrà una decisió, i (ii) si hi ha una alternativa preferida per la majoria dels votants, aquesta alternativa serà finalment triada. Afegeixo un estudi experimental que indica que fins i tot amb menys temps del necessari per a què cada votant pugui canviar el seu vot, els electors estaran d'acord amb una decisió de totes maneres.Estudio la conexión entre la corrupción y las características estructurales de los parlamentos: número de asientos, el número de partidos representados, y reglas de decisión adoptadas. Con la aplicación de enfoques analíticos y computacionales, además de simulaciones, muestro que el número medio de diputados que deben ser sobornados disminuye a medida que el número de partidos aumenta, por lo que el soborno se siente alentado por un número cada vez mayor de partes. También investigo dos formas en que puede afectar el tiempo en la toma de decisiones. En primer lugar, sugiero un procedimiento de votación iterativo en el que el retraso en tomar una decisión es costoso. Con dos electores, dos opciones y un orden de votación fijo, demuestro que en el único equilibrio perfecto en subjuegos, el elector que vota primero obtiene su opción preferida al inicio del procedimiento. Si el orden se invierte en algún momento, identifico la condición bajo la cual el votante que vota segundo puede obtener su opción preferida al principio. En segundo lugar, propongo otro procedimiento de votación iterativa, permitiendo que los votantes cambian sus votos, pero ahora con una fecha límite: una etapa que, si no se ha tomado una decisión, los resultados de la votación son peores. Muestro que (i) si hay tiempo suficiente para que todos los votantes cambien su voto, se tomará una decisión, y (ii) si hay una alternativa preferida por la mayoría de los votantes, esta alternativa será finalmente elegida. Añado un estudio experimental que indica que los electores estarán de acuerdo con una decisión aunque no haya tiempo sufficiente para que cada votante pueda cambiar su voto.I study the connection between corruption and structural characteristics of parliaments: number of seats, the number of parties represented, and decision rules adopted. Applying analytical and computational approaches, and running simulations, I show that the average number of deputies needed to be bribed decreases as the number of parties increases, so bribery is encouraged by a growing number of parties. I also investigate two ways in which time may affect decision-making. First, I suggest an iterative voting procedure in which delay to reach a decision is costly. For two voters and two options, with a fixed voting order, I prove that in the unique subgame perfect equilibrium the voter who votes first obtains his most preferred option at the beginning of the procedure. If the fixed order is reversed once at some stage, I identify the condition under which the voter initially voting the second obtains this most preferred option, also at the beginning. Second, I propose another iterative voting procedure, allowing voters to change their votes, but now with a deadline: a stage such that, if no decision has been taken by then, the worst outcome results. I show that (i) if there is enough time for all the voters to change their vote, a decision will be taken, and (ii) if there is an alternative preferred by a majority of the voters, this alternative will be finally chosen. I add an experimental study indicating that even with less time necessary for every voter to change his vote, the voters will agree with a decision anyway

Democracy in the Real World: Empirical Breakdowns in the Justification of Democracy

Justifications of democracy rest in large part on unacknowledged empirical assumptions regarding the cognitive, informational, and behavioral capacities of individuals and voting populations. The goal of this project was to identify those assumptions and examine them in light of data from the social sciences. To the extent that these assumptions are undermined by empirical evidence, the normative legitimacy of democracy as a system of rule is weakened. Theories of democracy were organized along a continuum from purely instrumental to purely intrinsic or procedural, and a representative sample of theories from along this spectrum were analyzed in order to identify their core empirical assumptions. Interest-based, deliberative, and egalitarian theories of democracy were each demonstrated to be predicated on substantive empirical assumptions which were contradicted by the available evidence. A sophisticated hybrid account incorporating aspects from along the spectrum of available theories was likewise demonstrated to be predicated on unsubstantiated assumptions regarding human capacities. A concluding analysis of the circumstances which undermine the assumptions of democratic theory demonstrated the limited tractability of these circumstances, leading to my assertion that a new conception of what democracy is and what purposes it should serve is warranted, and that in the interim, contemporary attempts to justify the dissemination of democracy are undermined

Democracy and the Common Good: A Study of the Weighted Majority Rule

In this study I analyse the performance of a democratic decision-making rule: the weighted majority rule. It assigns to each voter a number of votes that is proportional to her stakes in the decision. It has been shown that, for collective decisions with two options, the weighted majority rule in combination with self-interested voters maximises the common good when the latter is understood in terms of either the sum-total or prioritarian sum of the voters’ well-being. The main result of my study is that this argument for the weighted majority rule — that it maximises the common good — can be improved along the following three main lines. (1) The argument can be adapted to other criteria of the common good, such as sufficientarian, maximin, leximin or non-welfarist criteria. I propose a generic argument for the collective optimality of the weighted majority rule that works for all of these criteria. (2) The assumption of self-interested voters can be relaxed. First, common-interest voters can be accommodated. Second, even if voters are less than fully competent in judging their self-interest or the common interest, the weighted majority rule is weakly collectively optimal, that is, it almost certainly maximises the common good given large numbers of voters. Third, even for smaller groups of voters, the weighted majority rule still has some attractive features. (3) The scope of the argument can be extended to decisions with more than two options. I state the conditions under which the weighted majority rule maximises the common good even in multi-option contexts. I also analyse the possibility and the detrimental effects of strategic voting. Furthermore, I argue that self-interested voters have reason to accept the weighted majority rule