The Strategy-Proofness Landscape of Merging

Merging operators aim at defining the beliefs/goals of a group of agents from the beliefs/goals of each member of the group. Whenever an agent of the group has preferences over the possible results of the merging process (i.e., the possible merged bases), she can try to rig the merging process by lying on her true beliefs/goals if this leads to better merged base according to her point of view. Obviously, strategy-proof operators are highly desirable in order to guarantee equity among agents even when some of them are not sincere. In this paper, we draw the strategy-proof landscape for many merging operators from the literature, including model-based ones and formula-based ones. Both the general case and several restrictions on the merging process are considered

Strategy-proof judgment aggregation.

Which rules for aggregating judgments on logically connected propositions are manipulable and which not? In this paper, we introduce a preference-free concept of non-manipulability and contrast it with a preference-theoretic concept of strategy-proofness. We characterize all non-manipulable and all strategy-proof judgment aggregation rules and prove an impossibility theorem similar to the Gibbard--Satterthwaite theorem. We also discuss weaker forms of non-manipulability and strategy-proofness. Comparing two frequently discussed aggregation rules, we show that “conclusion-based voting” is less vulnerable to manipulation than “premise-based voting”, which is strategy-proof only for “reason-oriented” individuals. Surprisingly, for “outcome-oriented” individuals, the two rules are strategically equivalent, generating identical judgments in equilibrium. Our results introduce game-theoretic considerations into judgment aggregation and have implications for debates on deliberative democracy.

Group deliberation and the transformation ofjudgments: an impossibility result

While a large social-choice-theoretic literature discusses the aggregation ofindividual judgments into collective ones, there is relatively little formalwork on the transformation of individual judgments in group deliberation. Idevelop a model of judgment transformation and prove a baselineimpossibility result: Any judgment transformation function satisfying someinitially plausible condition is the identity function, under which no opinionchange occurs. I identify escape routes from this impossibility result andargue that successful group deliberation must be 'holistic': individualscannot generally revise their judgments on a proposition based on judgmentson that proposition alone but must take other propositions into account too. Idiscuss the significance of these findings for democratic theory.group deliberation, judgment aggregation, judgmenttransformation, belief revision

Manipulation in Group Argument Evaluation.

Given an argumentation framework and a group of agents, the individuals may have divergent opinions on the status of the arguments. If the group needsto reach a common position on the argumentation framework, the question is how the individual evaluations can be mapped into a collective one. Thisproblem has been recently investigated by Caminada and Pigozzi. In this paper, we investigate the behaviour of two of such operators from a socialchoice-theoretic point of view. In particular, we study under which conditions these operators are Pareto optimal and whether they are manipulable.Social choice theory; Judgment aggregation; Argumentation; Collective decision making;

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

Trust-sensitive belief revision

Belief revision is concerned with incorporating new information into a pre-existing set of beliefs. When the new information comes from another agent, we must first determine if that agent should be trusted. In this paper, we define trust as a pre-processing step before revision. We emphasize that trust in an agent is often restricted to a particular domain of expertise. We demonstrate that this form of trust can be captured by associating a state partition with each agent, then relativizing all reports to this partition before revising. We position the resulting family of trust-sensitive revision operators within the class of selective revision operators of Fermé and Hansson, and we examine its properties. In particular, we show how trust-sensitive revision is manipulable, in the sense that agents can sometimes have incentive to pass on misleading information. When multiple reporting agents are involved, we use a distance function over states to represent differing degrees of trust; this ensures that the most trusted reports will be believed