Optimal social choice functions: A utilitarian view
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] Craig Boutilier,et al. Robust Approximation and Incremental Elicitation in Voting Protocols , 2011, IJCAI.
[2] C. Hillinger,et al. The Case for Utilitarian Voting , 2005 .
[3] J. Harsanyi. Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility , 1955 .
[4] Robert F. Bordley,et al. A Pragmatic Method for Evaluating Election Schemes through Simulation , 1983, American Political Science Review.
[5] Meir Kalech,et al. Practical voting rules with partial information , 2010, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.
[6] H. Warren. Lower bounds for approximation by nonlinear manifolds , 1968 .
[7] Craig Boutilier,et al. Assessing regret-based preference elicitation with the UTPREF recommendation system , 2010, EC '10.
[8] Edith Hemaspaandra,et al. Dichotomy for voting systems , 2005, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..
[9] Piotr Faliszewski,et al. AI's War on Manipulation: Are We Winning? , 2010, AI Mag..
[10] Piotr Faliszewski,et al. On distance rationalizability of some voting rules , 2009, TARK '09.
[11] Ariel D. Procaccia,et al. The learnability of voting rules , 2009, Artif. Intell..
[12] Kenneth Y. Goldberg,et al. Eigentaste: A Constant Time Collaborative Filtering Algorithm , 2001, Information Retrieval.
[13] N. Nisan. Introduction to Mechanism Design (for Computer Scientists) , 2007 .
[14] Ariel D. Procaccia,et al. The Distortion of Cardinal Preferences in Voting , 2006, CIA.
[15] Yaron Azrieli,et al. Pareto Efficiency and Weighted Majority Rules , 2014 .
[16] D. Hensher,et al. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .
[17] H. Young. Social Choice Scoring Functions , 1975 .
[18] Marek Karpinski,et al. On Some Tighter Inapproximability Results (Extended Abstract) , 1999, ICALP.
[19] S. Merrill. A Comparison of Efficiency of Multicandidate Electoral Systems , 1984 .
[20] Miguel A. Ballester,et al. On the Justice of Decision Rules , 2011 .
[21] H. Young. Condorcet's Theory of Voting , 1988, American Political Science Review.
[22] Ariel D. Procaccia,et al. Voting almost maximizes social welfare despite limited communication , 2010, Artif. Intell..
[23] N. Alon. Tools from higher algebra , 1996 .
[24] Arkadii M. Slinko,et al. How large should a coalition be to manipulate an election? , 2004, Math. Soc. Sci..
[25] M. Trick,et al. Voting schemes for which it can be difficult to tell who won the election , 1989 .
[26] P. Berman,et al. On Some Tighter Inapproximability Results , 1998, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..
[27] Marcus Pivato,et al. Condorcet meets Bentham , 2015 .
[28] Vincent Conitzer,et al. Generalized scoring rules and the frequency of coalitional manipulability , 2008, EC '08.
[29] Peter L. Bartlett,et al. Neural Network Learning - Theoretical Foundations , 1999 .
[30] Michel Regenwetter,et al. The impartial culture maximizes the probability of majority cycles , 2003, Soc. Choice Welf..
[31] A. A. J. Marley,et al. Behavioral Social Choice - Probabilistic Models, Statistical Inference, and Applications , 2006 .
[32] Peter L. Bartlett,et al. Learning in Neural Networks: Theoretical Foundations , 1999 .
[33] Jörg Rothe,et al. Exact analysis of Dodgson elections: Lewis Carroll's 1876 voting system is complete for parallel access to NP , 1997, JACM.
[34] J. Neumann,et al. Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.
[35] Arunava Sen,et al. Ordinally Bayesian incentive compatible voting rules , 2004 .
[36] Craig Boutilier,et al. The unavailable candidate model: a decision-theoretic view of social choice , 2010, EC '10.