Compiling a collection of votes (a profile) consists in compressing the information it contains in a minimal way, while still allowing to compute the winner after more votes are received. These additional votes can be understood temporally (when votes come in an asynchronous way) or spatially (when votes are gathered locally in polling stations, and their results published locally before being aggregated on a global level). Given a voting rule, two profiles are equivalent for this rule if for whichever profile we add to each of them, the winner in the two expanded profiles will be the same. An equivalence relation between profiles corresponds to a set of information structures (called compilation structures) encoding equivalence classes. It is well-known that some information structures, such as pairwise majority matrices are the compilation structure for some voting rules, while some others (such as the majority graph) are not. We fully characterise the equivalence relations (or equivalently the information structures) that correspond to some voting rules, and we review a number of interesting information structures and give known voting rules that correspond to them.

When allocating indivisible items to agents, it is known that the only strategyproof mechanisms that satisfy a set of rather mild conditions are constrained serial dictatorships: given a fixed order over agents, at each step the designated agent chooses a given number of items (depending on her position in the sequence). Agents who come earlier in the sequence have a larger choice of items; however, this advantage can be compensated by a higher number of items received by those who come later. How to balance priority in the sequence and number of items received is a nontrivial question. We use a previous model, parameterized by a mapping from ranks to scores, a social welfare functional, and a distribution over preference profiles. For several meaningful choices of parameters, we show that the optimal sequence can be computed exactly in polynomial time or approximated using sampling. Our results hold for several probabilistic models on preference profiles, with an emphasis on the Plackett-Luce model. We conclude with experimental results showing how the optimal sequence is impacted by various parameters.

In many proportional parliamentary elections, electoral thresholds (typically 3–5%) are used to promote stability and governability by preventing the election of parties with very small representation. However, these thresholds often result in a significant number of "wasted votes" cast for parties that fail to meet the threshold, which reduces representativeness. One proposal is to allow voters to specify replacement votes, by either indicating a second choice party or by ranking a subset of the parties, but there are several ways of deciding on the scores of the parties (and thus the composition of the parliament) given those votes. We introduce a formal model of party voting with thresholds, and compare a variety of party selection rules axiomatically, and experimentally using a dataset we collected during the 2024 European election in France. We identify three particularly attractive rules, called Direct Winners Only (DO), Single Transferable Vote (STV) and Greedy Plurality (GP).

We give a quantitative analysis of the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) axiom. IIA says that the society's preference between x and y should depend only on individual preferences between x and y: we show that, in several contexts, if the individuals express their preferences about additional (``irrelevant'') alternatives, this information helps to estimate better which of x and y has higher social welfare. Our contribution is threefold: (1) we provide a new tool to measure the impact of IIA on social welfare (pairwise distortion), based on the well-established notion of voting distortion, (2) we study the average impact of IIA in both general and metric settings, with experiments on synthetic and real data and (3) we study the worst-case impact of IIA in the 1D-Euclidean metric space.

Selecting a committee that meets diversity and proportionality criteria is a challenging endeavor that has been studied extensively in recent years. This task becomes even more challenging when some of the selected candidates decline the invitation to join the committee. Since the unavailability of one candidate may impact the rest of the selection, inviting all candidates at the same time may lead to a suboptimal committee. Instead, invitations should be sequential and conditional on which candidates invited so far accepted the invitation: the solution to the committee selection problem is a query policy. If invitation queries are binding, they should be safe: one should not query a candidate without being sure that whatever the set of available candidates possible at that stage, her inclusion will not jeopardize committee optimality. Assuming approval-based inputs, we characterize the set of rules for which a safe query exists at every stage. In order to parallelize the invitation process, we investigate the computation of safe parallel queries, and show that it is often hard. We also study the existence of safe parallel queries with respect to proportionality axioms such as extended justified representation.

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.

A divisible public resource is to be divided among projects. We study rules that decide on a distribution of the budget when voters have ordinal preference rankings over projects. Examples of such portioning problems are participatory budgeting, time shares, and parliament elections. We introduce a family of rules for portioning, inspired by positional scoring rules. Rules in this family are given by a scoring vector (such as plurality or Borda) associating a positive value with each rank in a vote, and an aggregation function such as leximin or the Nash product. Our family contains well-studied rules, but most are new. We discuss computational and normative properties of our rules. We focus on fairness, and introduce the SD-core, a group fairness notion. Our Nash rules are in the SD-core, and the leximin rules satisfy individual fairness properties. Both are Pareto-efficient.

Epistemic social choice aims at unveiling a hidden ground truth given votes, which are interpreted as noisy signals about it. We consider here a simple setting where votes consist of approval ballots: each voter approves a set of alternatives which they believe can possibly be the ground truth. Based on the intuitive idea that more reliable votes contain fewer alternatives, we define several noise models that are approval voting variants of the Mallows model. The likelihood-maximizing alternative is then characterized as the winner of a weighted approval rule, where the weight of a ballot decreases with its cardinality. We have conducted an experiment on three image annotation datasets; they conclude that rules based on our noise model outperform standard approval voting; the best performance is obtained by a variant of the Condorcet noise model.

We define a family of runoff rules that work as follows: voters cast approval ballots over candidates; two finalists are selected; and the winner is decided by majority. With approval-type ballots, there are various ways to select the finalists. We leverage known approval-based committee rules and study the obtained runoff rules from an axiomatic point of view. Then we analyze the outcome of these rules on single-peaked profiles, and on real data.

Assume k candidates need to be selected. The candidates appear over time. Each time one appears, it must be immediately selected or rejected---a decision that is made by a group of individuals through voting. Assume the voters use approval ballots, i.e., for each candidate they only specify whether they consider it acceptable or not. This setting can be seen as a voting variant of choosing k secretaries. Our contribution is twofold. (1) We assess to what extent the committees that are computed online can proportionally represent the voters. (2) If a prior probability over candidate approvals is available, we show how to compute committees with maximal expected score.

Epistemic voting interprets votes as noisy signals about a ground truth. We consider contexts where the truth consists of a set of objective winners, knowing a lower and upper bound on its cardinality. A prototypical problem for this setting is the aggregation of multi-label annotations with prior knowledge on the size of the ground truth. We posit noise models, for which we define rules that output an optimal set of winners. We report on experiments on multi-label annotations (which we collected).

Compiling the votes of a subelectorate consists of storing the votes of a subset of voters in a compressed form, such that the winners can still be determined when additional votes are included. This leads to the notion of compilation complexity, which has already been investigated for single-winner voting rules. We perform a compilation complexity analysis of several common multi-winner voting rules.

We propose a market-inspired bidding scheme for the assignment of paper reviews in large academic conferences. We provide an analysis of the incentives of reviewers during the bidding phase, when reviewers have both private costs and some information about the demand for each paper; and their goal is to obtain the best possible k papers for a predetermined k. We show that by assigning `budgets' to reviewers and a `price' for every paper that is (roughly) proportional to its demand, the best response of a reviewer is to bid sincerely, i.e., on her most favorite papers, and match the budget even when it is not enforced. This game-theoretic analysis is based on a simple, prototypical assignment algorithm. We show via extensive simulations on bidding data from real conferences, that our bidding scheme would substantially improve both the bid distribution and the resulting assignment.

Citizens' assemblies need to represent subpopulations according to their proportions in the general population. These large committees are often constructed in an online fashion by contacting people, asking for the demographic features of the volunteers, and deciding to include them or not. This raises a trade-off between the number of people contacted (and the incurring cost) and the representativeness of the committee. We study three methods, theoretically and experimentally: a greedy algorithm that includes volunteers as long as proportionality is not violated; a non-adaptive method that includes a volunteer with a probability depending only on their features, assuming that the joint feature distribution in the volunteer pool is known; and a reinforcement learning based approach when this distribution is not known a priori but learnt online.

Most solution concepts in collective decision making are defined assuming complete knowledge of individuals' preferences and of the mechanism used for aggregating them. This is often unpractical or unrealistic. Under incomplete knowledge, a solution advocated by many consists in quanrtifying over all completions of the incomplete preference profile (or all instantiations of the incompletely specified mechanism). Voting rules can be `modalized' this way (leading to the notions of possible and necessary winners), and also efficiency and fairness notions in fair division, stability concepts in coalition formation, and more. I give here a survey of works along this line.

We provide a comprehensive analysis of the computational complexity of the outcome determination problem for the most important aggregation rules proposed in the literature on logic-based judgment aggregation. Judgment aggregation is a powerful and flexible framework for studying problems of collective decision making that has attracted interest in a range of disciplines, including Legal Theory, Philosophy, Economics, Political Science, and Artificial Intelligence. The problem of computing the outcome for a given list of individual judgments to be aggregated into a single collective judgment is the most fundamental algorithmic challenge arising in this context. Our analysis applies to several different variants of the basic framework of judgment aggregation that have been discussed in the literature, as well as to a new framework that encompasses all existing such frameworks in terms of expressive power and representational succinctness.

We propose a new representation setting for hedonic games, where each agent partitions the set of other agents into friends, enemies, and neutral agents, with friends and enemies being ranked. Under the assumption that preferences are monotonic (respectively, antimonotonic) with respect to the addition of friends (respectively, enemies), we propose a bipolar extension of the responsive extension principle, and use this principle to derive the (partial) preferences of agents over coalitions. Then, for a number of solution concepts, we characterize partitions that necessarily or possibly satisfy them, and we study the related problems in terms of their complexity.

A public divisible resource is to be divided among projects. We study rules that decide on a distribution of the budget when voters have ordinal preference rankings over projects. Examples of such portioning problems are participatory budgeting, time shares, and parliament elections. We introduce a family of rules for portioning, inspired by positional scoring rules. Rules in this family are given by a scoring vector (such as plurality or Borda) associating a positive value with each rank in a vote, and an aggregation function such as leximin or the Nash product. Our family contains well-studied rules, but most are new. We discuss computational and normative properties of our rules. We focus on fairness, and introduce the SD-core, a group fairness notion. Our Nash rules are in the SD-core, and the leximin rules satisfy individual fairness properties. Both are Pareto-efficient.

In the context of fair allocation of indivisible items, fairness concepts often compare the satisfaction of an agent to the satisfaction she would have from items that are not allocated to her: in particular, envy-freeness requires that no agent prefers the share of someone else to her own share. We argue that these notions could also be defined relative to the knowledge that an agent has on how the items that she does not receive are distributed among other agents. We define a family of epistemic notions of envy-freeness, parameterized by a social graph, where an agent observes the share of her neighbours but not of her non-neighbours. We also define an intermediate notion between envy-freeness and proportionality, also parameterized by a social graph. These weaker notions of envy-freeness are useful when seeking a fair allocation, since envy-freeness is often too strong. We position these notions with respect to known ones, thus revealing new rich hierarchies of fairness concepts. Finally, we present a very general framework that covers all the existing and many new fairness concepts.

Sequential allocation is a simple allocation mechanism in which agents are given pre-specified turns in which they take one item among those that are still available. It has long been known that sequential allocation is not strategyproof. This raises the question of the complexity of computing a preference report that yields a higher utility than the truthful preference. We show that the problem is NP-complete for one manipulating agent with additive utilities and several non-manipulating agents. In doing so, we correct a wrong claim made in a previous paper. We then give two additional results. First, we present a polynomial-time algorithm for optimal manipulation when the manipulator has additive binary utilities. Second, we consider a stronger notion of manipulation whereby the untruthful outcome yields more utility than the truthful outcome for all utilities consistent with the ordinal preferences; for this notion, we show that a manipulation, if any, can be computed in polynomial time.

We define a new class of low-communication voting rules, tailored for contexts with few voters and possibly many candidates. These rules are defined by a predefined sequence of voters: at each stage, the designated voter eliminates a candidate, and the last remaining candidate wins. We study both deterministic (non-anonymous) variants, and randomized (and anonymous) versions of these rules. We focus on a subfamily of these rules defined by ``non-interleaved'' sequences. We first focus on the axiomatic properties of our rules. Then we focus on the identification of the non-interleaved sequence that gives the best approximation of the Borda score under the impartial culture. Finally, we apply our rules to randomly generated data. Our conclusion is that, in contexts where there are more candidates than voters, elimination-based rules allow for a very low communication complexity (and especially, avoid asking voters to rank alternatives), and yet can be good approximations of common voting rules, while enjoying a number of good properties.

We consider the following problem in which a given number of items has to be chosen from a predefined set. Each item is described by a vector of attributes and for each attribute there is a desired distribution that the selected set should fit. We look for a set that fits as much as possible the desired distributions on all attributes. Examples of applications include choosing members of a representative committee, where candidates are described by attributes such as sex, age and profession, and where we look for a committee that for each attribute offers a certain representation, i.e., a single committee that contains a certain number of young and old people, certain number of men and women, certain number of people with different professions, etc. With a single attribute the problem boils down to the apportionment problem for party-list proportional representation systems (in such case the value of the single attribute is the political affiliation of a candidate). We study some properties of the associated subset selection rules, and address their computation.

One of the better studied properties for operators in judgment aggregation is independence, which essentially dictates that the collective judgment on one issue should not depend on the individual judgments given on some other issue(s) in the same agenda. Independence, although considered a desirable property, is too strong, because together with mild additional conditions it implies dictatorship. We propose here a weakening of independence, named agenda separability: a judgment aggregation rule satisfies it if, whenever the agenda is composed of several independent sub-agendas, the resulting collective judgment sets can be computed separately for each sub-agenda and then put together. We show that this property is discriminant, in the sense that among judgment aggregation rules so far studied in the literature, some satisfy it and some do not. We briefly discuss the implications of agenda separability on the computation of judgment aggregation rules.

We consider the following problem: There is a set of items (e.g., movies) and a group of agents (e.g., passengers on a plane); each agent has some intrinsic utility for each of the items. Our goal is to pick a set of K items that maximize the total derived utility of all the agents (i.e., in our example we are to pick K movies that we put on the plane's entertainment system). However, the actual utility that an agent derives from a given item is only a fraction of its intrinsic one, and this fraction depends on how the agent ranks the item among the chosen, available, ones. We provide a formal specification of the model and provide concrete examples and settings where it is applicable. We show that the problem is hard in general, but we show a number of tractability results for its natural special cases.

We study the problem of computing possible and necessary winners for partially specified weighted and unweighted tournaments. This problem arises naturally in elections with incompletely specified votes, partially completed sports competitions, and more generally in any scenario where the outcome of some pairwise comparisons is not yet fully known. We specifically consider a number of well-known solution concepts---including the uncovered set, Borda, ranked pairs, and maximin---and show that for most of them, possible and necessary winners can be identified in polynomial time. These positive algorithmic results stand in sharp contrast to earlier results concerning possible and necessary winners given partially specified preference profiles.

We consider voting situations in which some candidates may turn out to be unavailable. When determining availability is costly (e.g., in terms of money, time, or computation), voting prior to determining candidate availability and testing the winner's availability after the vote may be beneficial. However, since few voting rules are robust to candidate deletion, winner determination requires a number of such availability tests. We outline a model for analyzing such problems, defining robust winners relative to potential candidate unavailability. We assess the complexity of computing robust winners for several voting rules. Assuming a distribution over availability, and costs for availability tests/queries, we describe algorithms for computing optimal query policies, which minimize the expected cost of determining true winners.

Positional scoring rules in voting compute the score of an alternative by summing the scores for the alternative induced by every vote. This summation principle ensures that all votes contribute equally to the score of an alternative. We relax this assumption and, instead, aggregate scores by taking into account the rank of a score in the ordered list of scores obtained from the votes. This defines a new family of voting rules, rank-dependent scoring rules (RDSRs), based on ordered weighted average (OWA) operators, which, include all scoring rules, and many others, most of which of new. We study some properties of these rules, and show, empirically, that certain RDSRs are less manipulable than Borda voting, across a variety of statistical cultures.

We define a family of rules for dividing m indivisible goods among agents, parameterized by a scoring vector and a social welfare aggregation function. We assume that agents' preferences over sets of goods are additive, but that the input is ordinal: each agent simply ranks single goods. Similarly to (positional) scoring rules in voting, a scoring vector s = (s1,...,sm) consists of m nonincreasing nonnegative weights, where siis the score of a good assigned to an agent who ranks it in position i. The global score of an allocation for an agent is the sum of the scores of the goods assigned to her. The social welfare of an allocation is the aggregation of the scores of all agents, for some aggregation function ★ such as, typically, + or min. The rule associated with s and ★ maps a profile to (one of) the allocation(s) maximizing social welfare. After defining this family of rules, and focusing on some key examples, we investigate some of the social-choice-theoretic properties of this family of rules, such as various kinds of monotonicity, separability, envy-freeness, and Pareto efficiency.

Picking sequences are a natural way of allocating indivisible items to agents in a decentralized manner: at each stage, a designated agent chooses an item among those that remain available. We address the computational issues of the manipulation of picking sequences by an agent or a coalition of agents. We show that a single agent can compute an optimal manipulation in polynomial time. Then we consider several notions of coalitional manipulation; for one of these notions, we show that computing an optimal manipulation is easy. We temper these results by giving a nontrivial upper bound on the impact of manipulation on the loss of social welfare.

Several recent articles have studied judgment aggregation rules under the point of view of the normative properties they satisfy. However, a further criterion to choose between rules is their computational complexity. Here we review a few rules already proposed and studied in the literature, and identify the complexity of computing the outcome.

One of the better studied properties for operators in judgment aggregation is independence, which essentially dictates that the collective judgment on one issue should not depend on the individual judgments given on some other issue(s) in the same agenda. Independence is a desirable property for various reasons, but unfortunately it is too strong, as, together with mild additional conditions, it implies dictatorship. We propose here a weakening of independence, named agenda separability and show that this property is discriminant, i.e., some judgment aggregation rules satisfy it, others do not.

We present and study a general family of belief update operators in a propositional setting. Its operators are based on formula/ literal dependence, which is more fine-grained than the notion of formula/ variable dependence that was proposed in the literature: formula/variable dependence is a particular case of formula/literal dependence. Our update operators are defined according to the “forget-then-conjoin” scheme: updating a belief base by an input formula consists in first forgetting in the base every literal on which the input formula has a negative influence, and then conjoining the resulting base with the input formula. The operators of our family differ by the underlying notion of formula/literal dependence, which may be defined syntactically or semantically, and which may or may not exploit further information like known persistent literals and pre-set dependencies. We argue that this allows to handle the frame problem and the ramification problem in a more appropriate way. We evaluate the update operators of our family w.r.t. two important dimensions: the logical dimension, by checking the status of the Katsuno-Mendelzon postulates for update, and the computational dimension, by identifying the complexity of a number of decision problems (including model checking, consistency and inference), both in the general case and in some restricted cases, as well as by studying compactability issues. It follows that several operators of our family are interesting alternatives to previous belief update operators.

We investigate the problem of influencing the preferences of players within a Boolean game so that, if all players act rationally, certain desirable outcomes will result. The way in which we influence preferences is by overlaying games with taxation schemes. In a Boolean game, each player has unique control of a set of Boolean variables, and the choices available to the player correspond to the possible assignments that may be made to these variables. Each player also has a goal, represented by a Boolean formula, that they desire to see satisfied. Whether or not a player’s goal is satisfied will depend both on their own choices and on the choices of others, which gives Boolean games their strategic character. We extend this basic framework by introducing an external principal who is able to levy a taxation scheme on the game, which imposes a cost on every possible action that a player can choose. By designing a taxation scheme appropriately, it is possible to perturb the preferences of the players, so that they are incentivised to choose some equilibrium that would not otherwise be chosen. After motivating and formally presenting our model, we explore some issues surrounding it, including the complexity of finding a taxation scheme that implements some socially desirable outcome, and then discuss desirable properties of taxation schemes.

In many settings, a group of voters must come to a joint decision on multiple issues. In practice, this is often done by voting on the issues in sequence. We model sequential voting in multi-issue domains as a complete-information extensive-form game, in which the voters are perfectly rational and their preferences are common knowledge. In each step, the voters simultaneously vote on one issue, and the order of the issues is given exogenously before the process. We call this model strategic sequential voting.

We address the problem of designing communication protocols for voting rules when the set of candidates can evolve via the addition of new candidates. We show that the necessary amount of communication that must be transmitted between the voters and the central authority depends on the amount of space devoted to the storage of the votes over the initial set of candidates. This calls for a bicriteria evaluation of protocols. We consider a few usual voting rules, and three types of storage functions: full storage, where the full votes on the initial set of voters are stored; null storage, where nothing is stored; and anonymous storage, which lies in-between. For some of these pairs (voting rule, type of storage) we design protocols and show that they are asymptotically optimal by determining the communication complexity of the rule under the storage function considered.

Many voting rules are based on some minimization principle. Likewise, in the field of logic-based knowledge representation and reasoning, many belief change or inconsistency handling operators also make use of minimization. Surprisingly, minimization has not played a major role in the field of judgment aggregation, in spite of its proximity to voting theory and logic-based knowledge representation and reasoning. Here we make a step in this direction and study six judgment aggregation rules; two of them, based on distances, have been previously defined; the other four are new, and all inspired both by voting theory and knowledge representation and reasoning. We study the inclusion relationships between these rules and address some of their social choice theoretic properties.

In some voting situations, some new candidates may show up in the course of the process. In this case, we may want to determine which of the initial candidates are possible winners, given that a fixed number k of new candidates will be added. Focusing on scoring rules, we give complexity results for the above possible winner problem.

We study the problem of fairly dividing a set of goods amongst a group of agents, when those agents have preferences that are ordinal relations over alternative bundles of goods (rather than utility functions) and when our knowledge of those preferences is incomplete. The incompleteness of the preferences stems from the fact that each agent reports their preferences by means of an expression of bounded size in a compact preference representation language. Specifically, we assume that each agent only provides a ranking of individual goods (rather than of bundles). In this context, we consider the algorithmic problem of deciding whether there exists an allocation that is possibly (or necessarily) envy-free, given the incomplete preference information available, if in addition some mild economic efficiency criteria need to be satisfied. We provide simple characterisations, giving rise to simple algorithms, for some instances of the problem, and computational complexity results, establishing the intractability of the problem, for others.

A common way of dealing with the paradoxes of preference aggregation consists in restricting the domain of admissible preferences. The most well-known such restriction is single-peakedness. In this paper we focus on the problem of determining whether a given profile is single-peaked with respect to some axis, and on the computation of such an axis. This problem has already been considered in [2]; we give here a more efficient algorithm and address some related issues, such as the number of orders that may be compatible with a given profile, or the communication complexity of preference aggregation under the single-peakedness assumption.

Various tasks need to consider preferences in a dynamic way. We start by discussing several possible meanings of preference change, and then focus on the one we think is the most natural: preferences evolving after some new fact has been learned. We define a family of such preference change operators, parameterized by a revision function on epistemic states and a semantics for interpreting preferences over formulas. We list some natural properties that this kind of preference change should fulfill and give conditions on the revision function and the semantics of preference for each of these properties to hold.

We consider the problem of allocating fairly a set of indivisible goods among agents from the point of view of compact representation and computational complexity. We start by assuming that agents have dichotomous preferences expressed by propositional formulae. We express efficiency and envy-freeness in a logical setting, which reveals unexpected connections to nonmonotonic reasoning. Then we identify the complexity of determining whether there exists an efficient and envy-free allocation, for several notions of efficiency, when preferences are represented in a succinct way (as well as restrictions of this problem). We first study the problem under the assumption that preferences are dichotomous, and then in the general case.

We investigate the computational complexity of testing dominance and consistency in CP-nets. Previously, the complexity of dominance has been determined for restricted classes in which the dependency graph of the CP-net is acyclic. However, there are preferences of interest that define cyclic dependency graphs; these are modeled with general CP-nets. In our main results, we show here that both dominance and consistency for general CP-nets are PSPACE-complete. We then consider the concept of strong dominance, dominance equivalence and dominance incomparability, and several notions of optimality, and identify the complexity of the corresponding decision problems. The reductions used in the proofs are from STRIPS planning, and thus reinforce the earlier established connections between both areas.

The area of belief change studies how a rational agent may maintain its beliefs when obtaining or perceiving new information about the environment. This new information could include properties of the actual world, occurrences of events, and, in the case of multiple agents, actions performed by other agents, as well as the beliefs and preferences of other agents. Not surprisingly, this area has been of interest to researchers in different communities. The initial research in belief change came from the philosophical community, wherein belief change was studied generally from a normative point of view (i.e. providing axiomatic foundations about how rational agents should behave with respect to the information flux). Subsequently, computer scientists, especially in the artificial intelligence and the database communities, have been building on these results. Belief change, as studied by computer scientists, not only pays attention to behavioural properties characterizing evolving databases or knowledge bases, but must also address computational issues such as how to represent beliefs states in a concise way and how to efficiently compute the revision of a belief state. More recently, the economics and game theory community, in particular the emerging field of cognitive economics, has become active in belief change research, adopting a normative point of view, like philosophers, but paying more attention to the ‘cognitive plausibility’ or ‘fitness’ of the belief change operators.

Multiple election paradoxes arise when voting separately on each issue from a set of related issues results in an obviously undesirable outcome. Several authors have argued that a sufficient condition for avoiding multiple election paradoxes is the assumption that voters have separable preferences. We show that this extremely demanding restriction can be relaxed into the much more reasonable one: there exists a linear order x1 > … > xp on the set of issues such that for each voter, every issue xi is preferentially independent of xi+1, …, xp given x1, …, xi-1. This leads us to define a family of sequential voting rules, defined as the sequential composition of local voting rules. These rules relate to the setting of conditional preference networks (CP-nets) recently developed in the Artificial Intelligence literature. We study in detail how these sequential rules inherit, or do not inherit, the properties of their local components. We focus on the case of multiple referenda, corresponding to multiple elections with binary issues.

In multiagent settings where the agents have different preferences, preference aggregation is a central issue. Voting is a general method for preference aggregation, but seminal results have shown that all general voting protocols are manipulable. One could try to avoid manipulation by using protocols where determining a beneficial manipulation is hard. Especially among computational agents, it is reasonable to measure this hardness by computational complexity. Some earlier work has been done in this area, but it was assumed that the number of voters and candidates is unbounded. Such hardness results lose relevance when the number of candidates is small, because manipulation algorithms that are exponential only in the number of candidates (and only slightly so) might be available. We give such an algorithm for an individual agent to manipulate the Single Transferable Vote (STV) protocol, which has been shown hard to manipulate in the above sense. This motivates the core of this article, which derives hardness results for realistic elections where the number of candidates is a small constant (but the number of voters can be large). The main manipulation question we study is that of coalitional manipulation by weighted voters. (We show that for simpler manipulation problems, manipulation cannot be hard with few candidates.) We study both constructive manipulation (making a given candidate win) and destructive manipulation (making a given candidate not win). We characterize the exact number of candidates for which manipulation becomes hard for the plurality , Borda , STV , Copeland , maximin , veto , plurality with runoff , regular cup , and randomized cup protocols. We also show that hardness of manipulation in this setting implies hardness of manipulation by an individual in unweighted settings when there is uncertainty about the others' votes (but not vice-versa). To our knowledge, these are the first results on the hardness of manipulation when there is uncertainty about the others' votes.

In multiagent settings where the agents have different preferences, preference aggregation is a central issue. Voting is a general method for preference aggregation, but seminal results have shown that all general voting protocols are manipulable. One could try to avoid manipulation by using voting protocols where determining a beneficial manipulation is hard computationally. The complexity of manipulating realistic elections where the number of candidates is a small constant was recently studied [4], but the emphasis was on the question of whether or not a protocol becomes hard to manipulate for some constant number of candidates. That work, in many cases, left open the question: How many candidates are needed to make elections hard to manipulate? This is a crucial question when comparing the relative manipulability of different voting protocols. In this paper we answer that question for the voting protocols of the earlier study: plurality, Borda, STV, Copeland, maximin, regular cup, and randomized cup. We also answer that question for two voting protocols for which no results on the complexity of manipulation have been derived before: veto and plurality with runoff. It turns out that the voting protocols under study become hard to manipulate at 3 candidates, 4 candidates, 7 candidates, or never.

Independence -- the study of what is relevant to a given problem of reasoning -- has received an increasing attention from the AI community. In this paper, we consider two basic forms of independence, namely, a syntactic one and a semantic one. We show features and drawbacks of them. In particular, while the syntactic form of independence is computationally easy to check, there are cases in which things that intuitively are not relevant are not recognized as such. We also consider the problem of forgetting, i.e., distilling from a knowledge base only the part that is relevant to the set of queries constructed from a subset of the alphabet. While such process is computationally hard, it allows for a simplification of subsequent reasoning, and can thus be viewed as a form of compilation: once the relevant part of a knowledge base has been extracted, all reasoning tasks to be performed can be simplified.

This example considers the problem of finding a suitable assignment of a set of referees to each one of a set of papers submitted to a conference, given the preferences expressed by the referees regarding the papers they are willing to review, the adequation between their areas of competence and the topics of the papers, and a set of regulations bearing on the global assignment. This example illustrates the issue of fusing heterogeneous data consisting of individual preference profiles and a set of global regulations. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The problem of combining pieces of information issued from several sources can be encountered in various fields of application. This paper aims at presenting the different aspects of information fusion in different domains, such as databases, regulations, preferences, sensor fusion, etc., at a quite general level. We first present different types of information encountered in fusion problems, and different aims of the fusion process. Then we focus on representation issues which are relevant when discussing fusion problems. An important issue is then addressed, the handling of conflicting information. We briefly review different domains where fusion is involved, and describe how the fusion problems are stated in each domain. Since the term fusion can have different, more or less broad, meanings, we specify later some terminology with respect to related problems, that might be included in a broad meaning of fusion. Finally we briefly discuss the difficult aspects of validation and evaluation. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

This article proposes a framework for planning under uncertainty given a partially known initial state and a set of actions having nondeterministic (disjunctive) effects, some being more possible (normal) than the others. The problem, henceforth called possibilistic planning problem, is represented in an extension of the STRIPS formalism in which the initial state of the world and the graded nondeterministic effects of actions are described by possibility distributions. Two notions of solution plans are introduced: γ-acceptable plans that lead to a goal state with a certainty greater than a given threshold γ, and optimally safe plans that lead to a goal state with maximal certainty. It is shown that the search of a γ-acceptable plan amounts to solve a derived planning problem that has only pure (nongraded) nondeterministic actions. A sound and complete partial order planning algorithm, called NDP, has been developed for such classical nondeterministic planning problems. The generation of γ-acceptable and optimally safe plans is achieved by two sound and complete planning algorithms: POSPLAN that relies on NDP, and POSPLAN* that can be seen as a hierarchical version of POSPLAN. The possibilistic planning framework is illustrated throughout the article by an example in the agronomic domain. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

An approach to automated deduction under uncertainty, based on possibilistic logic, is described; for that purpose we deal with clauses weighted by a degree that is a lower bound of a necessity or a possibility measure, according to the nature of the uncertainty. Two resolution rules are used for coping with the different situations, and the classical refutation method can be generalized with these rules. Also, the lower bounds are allowed to be functions of variables involved in the clauses, which results in hypothetical reasoning capabilities. In cases where only lower bounds of necessity measures are involved, a semantics is proposed in which the completeness of the extended resolution principle is proved. The relation between our approach and the idea of minimizing abnormality is briefly discussed. Moreover, deduction from a partially inconsistent knowledge base can be managed in this approach and captures a form of nonmonotonicity.>