209 research outputs found
Split Cycle: A New Condorcet Consistent Voting Method Independent of Clones and Immune to Spoilers
We propose a Condorcet consistent voting method that we call Split Cycle.
Split Cycle belongs to the small family of known voting methods that
significantly narrow the choice of winners in the presence of majority cycles
while also satisfying independence of clones. In this family, only Split Cycle
satisfies a new criterion we call immunity to spoilers, which concerns adding
candidates to elections, as well as the known criteria of positive involvement
and negative involvement, which concern adding voters to elections. Thus, in
contrast to other clone-independent methods, Split Cycle mitigates both
"spoiler effects" and "strong no show paradoxes."Comment: 71 pages, 15 figures. Added a new explanation of Split Cycle in
Section 1, updated the caption to Figure 2, the discussion in Section 3.3,
and Remark 4.11, and strengthened Proposition 6.20 to Theorem 6.20 to cover
single-voter resolvability in addition to asymptotic resolvability. Thanks to
Nicolaus Tideman for helpful discussio
Split Cycle: A New Condorcet Consistent Voting Method Independent of Clones and Immune to Spoilers
We introduce a new Condorcet consistent voting method, called Split Cycle. Split Cycle belongs to the small family of known voting methods satisfying independence of clones and the Pareto principle. Unlike other methods in this family, Split Cycle satisfies a new criterion we call immunity to spoilers, which concerns adding candidates to elections, as well as the known criteria of positive involvement and negative involvement, which concern adding voters to elections. Thus, relative to other clone-independent Paretian methods, Split Cycle mitigates “spoiler effects” and “strong no show paradoxes.
Evidence and plausibility in neighborhood structures
The intuitive notion of evidence has both semantic and syntactic features. In
this paper, we develop an {\em evidence logic} for epistemic agents faced with
possibly contradictory evidence from different sources. The logic is based on a
neighborhood semantics, where a neighborhood indicates that the agent has
reason to believe that the true state of the world lies in . Further notions
of relative plausibility between worlds and beliefs based on the latter
ordering are then defined in terms of this evidence structure, yielding our
intended models for evidence-based beliefs. In addition, we also consider a
second more general flavor, where belief and plausibility are modeled using
additional primitive relations, and we prove a representation theorem showing
that each such general model is a -morphic image of an intended one. This
semantics invites a number of natural special cases, depending on how uniform
we make the evidence sets, and how coherent their total structure. We give a
structural study of the resulting `uniform' and `flat' models. Our main result
are sound and complete axiomatizations for the logics of all four major model
classes with respect to the modal language of evidence, belief and safe belief.
We conclude with an outlook toward logics for the dynamics of changing
evidence, and the resulting language extensions and connections with logics of
plausibility change
An abstract approach to reasoning about games with mistaken and changing beliefs
We do not believe that logic is the sole answer to deep and intriguing questions about human behaviour, but we think that it might be a useful tool in simulating and understanding it to a certain degree and in specifically restricted areas of application. We do not aim to resolve the question of what rational behaviour in games with mistaken and changing beliefs is. Rather, we develop a formal and abstract framework that allows us to reason about behaviour in games with mistaken and changing beliefs leaving aside normative questions concerning whether the agents are behaving “rationally”; we focus on what agents do in a game. In this paper, we are not concerned with the reasoning process of the (ideal) economic agent; rather, our intended application is artificial agents, e.g., autonomous agents interacting with a human user or with each other as part of a computer game or in a virtual world. We give a story of mistaken beliefs that is a typical example of the situation in which we should want our formal setting to be applied. Then we give the definitions for our formal system and how to use this setting to get a backward induction solution. We then apply our semantics to the story related earlier and give an analysis of it. Our final section contains a discussion of related work and future projects. We discuss the advantages of our approach over existing approaches and indicate how it can be connected to the existing literature
Axioms for Defeat in Democratic Elections
We propose six axioms concerning when one candidate should defeat another in
a democratic election involving two or more candidates. Five of the axioms are
widely satisfied by known voting procedures. The sixth axiom is a weakening of
Kenneth Arrow's famous condition of the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives
(IIA). We call this weakening Coherent IIA. We prove that the five axioms plus
Coherent IIA single out a voting procedure studied in our recent work: Split
Cycle. In particular, Split Cycle is the most resolute voting procedure
satisfying the six axioms for democratic defeat. In addition, we analyze how
Split Cycle escapes Arrow's Impossibility Theorem and related impossibility
results.Comment: 41 page
- …