Multi-agent soft constraint aggregation via sequential voting: theoretical and experimental results

We consider scenarios where several agents must aggregate their preferences over a large set of candidates with a combinatorial structure. That is, each candidate is an element of the Cartesian product of the domains of some variables (i.e., features). These scenarios are very common when candidates are described by feature vectors, such as cars, or houses, or any complex product. We assume agents to compactly express their preferences over the candidates via soft constraints. This is a compact way to model preferences which naturally models variables domains, and relationship among variables. To aggregate the preferences of the agents, we consider a sequential procedure that asks the agents to vote on one variable at a time. At each step, all agents express their preferences over the domain of a variable; based on such preferences, a voting rule is used to select one value for that variable. When all variables have been considered, the selected values constitute the returned variable assignment, that is, the elected candidate. We study several properties of this procedure (such as Condorcet consistency, anonymity, neutrality, monotonicity, consistency, efficiency, participation, independence of irrelevant alternatives, non dictatorship, and strategy-proofness), by relating them to corresponding properties of the adopted voting rules used for each variable. Moreover, we perform an experimental study on a special kind of soft constraints, namely fuzzy constraints. The experimental study shows that the proposed sequential procedure yields a considerable saving in time with respect to a non-sequential approach, while the winners satisfy the agents just as well, independently of the variable ordering, and of the presence of coalitions of agents.

[1]  Francesca Rossi,et al.  A Framework for Aggregating Influenced CP-Nets and its Resistance to Bribery , 2013, AAAI.

[2]  A. Gibbard Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result , 1973 .

[3]  K. Arrow,et al.  Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare , 2011 .

[4]  Lirong Xia,et al.  Sequential composition of voting rules in multi-issue domains , 2009, Math. Soc. Sci..

[5]  K. Arrow,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[6]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Paradoxes of Multiple Elections: An Approximation Approach , 2012, KR.

[7]  Sanjay Mittal,et al.  Towards a Generic Model of Configuraton Tasks , 1989, IJCAI.

[8]  Francesca Rossi,et al.  Multi-Agent Soft Constraint Aggregation via Sequential Voting , 2011, IJCAI.

[9]  Fahiem Bacchus,et al.  Graphical models for preference and utility , 1995, UAI.

[10]  Miroslaw Truszczynski,et al.  Aggregating Conditionally Lexicographic Preferences Using Answer Set Programming Solvers , 2013, ADT.

[11]  Maria Silvia Pini,et al.  Bribery in Voting Over Combinatorial Domains Is Easy , 2012, ISAIM.

[12]  Ronen I. Brafman,et al.  CP-nets: A Tool for Representing and Reasoning withConditional Ceteris Paribus Preference Statements , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[13]  Francesca Rossi,et al.  Bribery in Voting With Soft Constraints , 2013, AAAI.

[14]  Alan D. Taylor,et al.  Social choice and the mathematics of manipulation , 2005 .

[15]  Martin Grohe The complexity of homomorphism and constraint satisfaction problems seen from the other side , 2007, JACM.

[16]  Ronen I. Brafman,et al.  Finding the Next Solution in Constraint- and Preference-Based Knowledge Representation Formalisms , 2010, KR.

[17]  Francesca Rossi,et al.  Bribery in voting with CP-nets , 2013, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[18]  Francesca Rossi,et al.  Resistance to bribery when aggregating soft constraints , 2013, AAMAS.

[19]  Piotr Faliszewski,et al.  How Hard Is Bribery in Elections? , 2006, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[20]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Strategy-Proof Voting Rules over Multi-issue Domains with Restricted Preferences , 2010, WINE.

[21]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Constraint Processing , 1995, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[22]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Sequential Auctions for the Allocation of Resources with Complementarities , 1999, IJCAI.

[23]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  When are elections with few candidates hard to manipulate? , 2007, J. ACM.

[24]  Francesca Rossi,et al.  Influence and aggregation of preferences over combinatorial domains , 2012, AAMAS.

[25]  Patrice Perny,et al.  Preference Aggregation with Graphical Utility Models , 2008, AAAI.

[26]  M. Satterthwaite Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions , 1975 .

[27]  Thomas Schiex,et al.  Possibilistic Constraint Satisfaction Problems or "How to Handle Soft Constraints?" , 1992, UAI.

[28]  Francesca Rossi,et al.  Multi-agent Soft Constraint Aggregation - A Sequential Approach , 2011, ICAART.

[29]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Aggregating preferences in multi-issue domains by using maximum likelihood estimators , 2010, AAMAS.

[30]  Lirong Xia,et al.  Aggregating Conditionally Lexicographic Preferences on Multi-issue Domains , 2012, CP.

[31]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  CP-nets: a tool for represent-ing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus state-ments , 2004 .

[32]  J. Kelly Arrow Impossibility Theorems , 1978 .

[33]  K. Arrow Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[34]  Kenneth O. May,et al.  A Set of Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision , 1952 .

[35]  Edmund H. Durfee,et al.  Making social choices from individuals' CP-nets , 2007, AAMAS '07.

[36]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Voting on Multiattribute Domains with Cyclic Preferential Dependencies , 2008, AAAI.