Tournaments are widely used models to represent pairwise dominance between candidates, alternatives, or teams. We study the problem of providing certified explanations for why a candidate appears among the winners under various tournament rules. To this end, we identify minimal supports—minimal sub-tournaments in which the candidate is guaranteed to win regardless of how the rest of the tournament is completed (that is, the candidate is a necessary winner of the sub-tournament). This notion corresponds to an abductive explanation for the question,"Why does the winner win the tournament?"—a central concept in formal explainable AI. We focus on common tournament solutions: the top cycle, the uncovered set, the Copeland rule, the Borda rule, the maximin rule, and the weighted uncovered set. For each rule we determine the size of the smallest minimal supports, and we present polynomial-time algorithms to compute them for all solutions except for the weighted uncovered set, for which the problem is NP-complete. Finally, we show how minimal supports can serve to produce compact, certified, and intuitive explanations for tournament solutions.

Majority illusion occurs in a social network when the majority of the network vertices belong to a certain type but the majority of each vertex's neighbours belong to a different type, therefore creating the wrong perception, i.e., the illusion, that the majority type is different from the actual one. From a system engineering point of view, this motivates the search for algorithms to detect and, where possible, correct this often undesirable phenomenon. In this we provide a computational study of majority illusion in social networks, paying particular attention to the problem of its verification, i.e., whether majority illusion can occur on social networks, and elimination, i.e., how can we eliminate majority illusion by social network rewiring. While we show that the problems we consider are generally NP-complete, we also provide a parameterised complexity analysis, showing FPT-algorithms for the detection problem and W[1]-hardness for the elimination problem, using natural graph-theoretic parameters.

We view voting rules as classifiers that assign a winner (a class) to a profile of voters’ preferences (an instance). We propose to apply techniques from formal explainability, most notably abductive and contrastive explanations, to identify minimal subsets of a preference profile that either imply the current winner or explain why a different candidate was not elected. Formal explanations turn out to have strong connections with classical problems studied in computational social choice such as bribery, possible and necessary winner identification, and preference learning. We design algorithms for computing abductive and contrastive explanations for scoring rules. For the Borda rule, we find a lower bound on the size of the smallest abductive explanations, and we conduct simulations to identify correlations between properties of preference profiles and the size of their smallest abductive explanations.

Majority illusion occurs in a social network when the majority of the network vertices belong to a certain type but the majority of each vertex's neighbours belong to a different type, therefore creating the wrong perception, i.e., the illusion, that the majority type is different from the actual one. From a system engineering point of view, this motivates the search for algorithms to detect and, where possible, correct this undesirable phenomenon. In this paper we initiate the computational study of majority illusion in social networks, providing NP-hardness and parametrised complexity results for its occurrence and elimination.

Rent division consists in simultaneously computing an allocation of rooms to agents and a payment, starting from an individual valuation of each room by each agent. When agents have budget limits, it is known that envy-free solutions do not necessarily exist. We propose two solutions to overcome this problem. In the first one, we relax envy-freeness to account for budget disparities. In the second one, we allow fractional allocations, in which agents may change rooms during the duration of the lease.

Responsibility anticipation is the process of determining if the actions of an individual agent may cause it to be responsible for a particular outcome. This can be used in a multi-agent planning setting to allow agents to anticipate responsibility in the plans they consider. The planning setting in this paper includes partial information regarding the initial state and considers formulas in linear temporal logic as positive or negative outcomes to be attained or avoided. We firstly define attribution for notions of active, passive and contributive responsibility, and consider their agentive variants. We then use these to define the notion of responsibility anticipation. We prove that our notions of anticipated responsibility can be used to coordinate agents in a planning setting and give complexity results for our model, discussing equivalence with classical planning. We also present an outline for solving some of our attribution and anticipation problems using PDDL solvers.

In rank aggregation, members of a population rank issues to decide which are collectively preferred. We focus instead on identifying divisive issues that express disagreements among the preferences of individuals. We analyse the properties of our divisiveness measures and their relation to existing notions of polarisation. We also study their robustness under incomplete preferences and algorithms for control and manipulation of divisiveness. Our results advance our understanding of how to quantify disagreements in collective decision-making.

A moral planning agent (MPA) seeks to compare two plans or compute an optimal plan in an interactive setting with other agents, where relative ideality and optimality of plans are defined with respect to a prioritized value base. We model MPAs whose values are expressed by formulas of linear temporal logic (LTL) and define comparison for both joint plans and individual plans. We introduce different evaluation criteria for individual plans including an optimistic (risk-seeking) criterion, a pessimistic (risk-averse) one, and two criteria based on the use of anticipated responsibility. We provide complexity results for a variety of MPA problems.

Iterative voting allows a group of agents to take a collective decision in a dynamic fashion: a series of plurality elections are staged, making the relative scores of the candidates public after each round. Voters can thus adjust their ballots at each step until the process converges (or a maximal number of steps is reached). Research in computational social choice has shown that this method has the potential of reaching good-quality decisions while at the same time being easy to explain to voters. This paper presents our implementation of iterative voting on a voting platform accessible on the web.

Liquid democracy bridges the gap between direct and representative democracy by allowing agents to vote directly on an issue or delegate to a trusted voter. Yet, when applied to votes on multiple interconnected issues, liquid democracy can lead agents to submit inconsistent votes. Two approaches are possible to maintain consistency: either modify the voters' ballots by ignoring problematic delegations, or resolve all delegations and make changes to the final votes of the agents. We show that rules based on minimising such changes are NP-complete. We propose instead to elicit and apply the agents' priorities over the delegated issues, designing and analysing two algorithms that find consistent votes from the agents' delegations in polynomial time.

Collective decisions among human and artificial agents can be enhanced by allowing for more interaction among decision-makers and by letting them express more information about their preferences. In this paper I present ongoing research on two settings: iterative voting, which repeatedly applies a voting rule until decision-makers converge to an outcome, and delegative voting on multiple issues.

We introduce PCP-nets, a formalism to model qualitative conditional preferences with probabilistic uncertainty. PCP-nets generalise CP-nets by allowing for uncertainty over the preference orderings. We define and study both optimality and dominance queries in PCP-nets, and we propose a tractable approximation of dominance which we show to be very accurate in our experimental setting. Since PCP-nets can be seen as a way to model a collection of weighted CP-nets, we also explore the use of PCP-nets in a multi-agent context, where individual agents submit CP-nets which are then aggregated into a single PCP-net. We consider various ways to perform such aggregation and we compare them via two notions of scores, based on well known voting theory concepts. Experimental results allow us to identify the aggregation method that better represents the given set of CP-nets and the most efficient dominance procedure to be used in the multi-agent context.

Abstract In this paper, we present two models for reasoning about strategic actions in opinion diffusion. In both models, the agents are endowed with goals expressed compactly in a suitably defined language of linear temporal logic and are connected in an influence network which defines the underlying opinion diffusion process. The agents can act by exerting their influence or retain from it: in one case, we assume an initial state of incomplete information about the agents’ opinions, while in the other, we assume that the agents have complete information. We investigate the interplay between simple network structures (e.g. certain acyclic graphs) and the existence of game-theoretic solution concepts for the unanimity aggregator. We also give bounds for the computational complexity of strategic reasoning in both our models on arbitrary networks.

We propose a generalisation of liquid democracy in which a voter can either vote directly on the issues at stake, delegate her vote to another voter, or express complex delegations to a set of trusted voters. By requiring a ranking of desirable delegations and a backup vote from each voter, we are able to put forward and compare four algorithms to solve delegation cycles and obtain a final collective decision.

We study voting games on binary issues, where voters hold an objective over the outcome of the collective decision and are allowed, before the vote takes place, to negotiate their ballots with the other participants. We analyse the voters' rational behaviour in the resulting two-phase game when ballots are aggregated via non-manipulable rules and, more specifically, quota rules. We show under what conditions undesirable equilibria can be removed and desirable ones sustained as a consequence of the pre-vote phase.

We study the complexity of bribery in a network-based rating system, where individuals are connected in a social network and an attacker, typically a service provider, can influence their rating and increase the overall profit. We derive a number of algorithmic properties of this framework, in particular we show that establishing the existence of an optimal manipulation strategy for the attacker is NP-complete, even with full knowledge of the underlying network structure.

We study agents expressing propositional goals over a set of binary issues to reach a collective decision. We adapt properties and rules from the literature on Social Choice Theory to our setting, providing an axiomatic characterisation of a majority rule for goal-based voting. We study the computational complexity of finding the outcome of our rules (i.e., winner determination), showing that it ranges from Nondeterministic Polynomial Time (NP) to Probabilistic Polynomial Time (PP).

Judgment aggregation models a group of agents having to collectively decide over a number of logically interconnected issues starting from their individual opinions. In recent years, a growing literature has focused on the design of logical systems for social choice theory, and for judgment aggregation in particular, making use of logical languages designed ad hoc for this purpose. In this paper we deploy the existing formalism of Dynamic Logic of Propositional Assignments (DL-PA), an instance of Propositional Dynamic Logic where atomic programs affect propositional valuations. We show that DL-PA is a well-suited formalism for modeling the aggregation of binary judgments from multiple agents, by providing logical equivalences in DL-PA for some of the best-known aggregation procedures, desirable axioms coming from the literature on judgment aggregation and properties for the safety of the agenda problem.

In binary aggregation, each member of a group expresses yes/no choices regarding several correlated issues and we need to decide on a collective choice that accurately reflects the views of the group. A good collective choice will minimise the distance to each of the individual choices, but using such a distance-based aggregation rule is computationally intractable. Instead, we explore a class of low-complexity aggregation rules that select the most representative voter in any given situation and return that voter's choice as the outcome.

Suppose a number of agents each provide us with a directed graph over a common set of vertices. Graph aggregation is the problem of computing a single “collective” graph that best represents the information inherent in this profile of individual graphs. We consider this aggregation problem from the point of view of social choice theory and ask what properties shared by the individual graphs will transfer to the graph computed by a given aggregation procedure. Our main result is a general impossibility theorem that applies to a wide range of graph properties.

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 premise-based procedure, and a distance-based procedure) and for classes of aggregation procedures characterised in terms of fundamental axioms.

Many collective decision making problems have a combinatorial structure: the agents involved must decide on multiple issues and their preferences over one issue may depend on the choices adopted for some of the others. Voting is an attractive method for making collective decisions, but conducting a multi-issue election is challenging. On the one hand, requiring agents to vote by expressing their preferences over all combinations of issues is computationally infeasible; on the other, decomposing the problem into several elections on smaller sets of issues can lead to paradoxical outcomes. Any pragmatic method for running a multi-issue election will have to balance these two concerns. We identify and analyse the problem of generating an agenda for a given election, specifying which issues to vote on together in local elections and in which order to schedule those local elections.

My PhD thesis aims at carrying out a complete analysis of problems of combinatorial aggregation, with particular attention to the binary case, in which a set of individuals each make a choice over a finite number of issues, and such choices have to be aggregated into a collective one.

Binary aggregation studies problems in which individuals express yes/no choices over a number of possibly correlated issues, and these individual choices need to be aggregated into a collective choice. We show how several classical frameworks of Social Choice Theory, particularly preference and judgment aggregation, can be viewed as binary aggregation problems by designing an appropriate set of integrity constraints for each specific setting. We explore the generality of this framework, showing that it makes available useful techniques both to prove theoretical results, such as a new impossibility theorem in preference aggregation, and to analyse practical problems, such as the characterisation of safe agendas in judgment aggregation in a syntactic way. The framework also allows us to formulate a general definition of paradox that is independent of the domain under consideration, which gives rise to the study of the class of aggregation procedures of generalised dictatorships.

We consider problems where several individuals each need to make a yes/no choice regarding a number of issues and these choices then need to be aggregated into a collective choice. Depending on the application at hand, different combinations of yes/no may be considered rational. We can describe such rationality assumptions in terms of a propositional formula. The question then arises whether or not a given aggregation procedure will lift the rationality assumptions from the individual to the collective level, i.e., whether the collective choice will be rational whenever all individual choices are. To address this question, for each of a number of simple fragments of the language of propositional logic, we provide an axiomatic characterisation of the class of aggregation procedures that will lift all rationality assumptions expressible in that fragment.