The logic of collective choice

This paper presents a modal logic for modelling individual and collective choices over a set of feasible alternatives. The logic extends propositional logic with a binary modality so that a formula can express not only properties of alternatives but also priorities of individuals over the properties. More importantly, each formula of this logic determines a preference ordering over alternatives based on the priorities over properties that the formula expresses. In such a way, preferences of multiple agents can be represented by a set of formulas in the same logic. This allows us to treat the problem of collective choice in a multi-agent system as aggregation of logical formulas. We further use this language to express a few plausible collective choice rules. Similar to preference aggregation, we specify collective choice rules by Arrow's conditions. Interestingly, all Arrowian conditions are plausible under the new setting except Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives. This gives us a natural way to avoid Arrow's impossibility result. Finally, we develop a model checking algorithm to automatically generate individual and collective choices in the logic.

[1]  Daniel N. Osherson,et al.  PREFERENCE BASED ON REASONS , 2011, The Review of Symbolic Logic.

[2]  F. Dietrich,et al.  Judgment Aggregation By Quota Rules , 2007 .

[3]  P. Fishburn The Theory Of Social Choice , 1973 .

[4]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Combining fuzzy information from multiple systems (extended abstract) , 1996, PODS.

[5]  Fenrong Liu,et al.  Changing for the better : preference dynamics and agent diversity , 2008 .

[6]  Salem Benferhat,et al.  Qualitative choice logic , 2004, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Sjur K. Dyrkolbotn,et al.  Reasoning about reasons behind preferences using modal logic , 2013, Information Systems Frontiers.

[8]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Qualitative Decision Theory , 1994, AAAI.

[9]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Combining fuzzy information: an overview , 2002, SGMD.

[10]  Kfir Eliaz,et al.  Reason-Based Choice: A Bargaining Rationale for the Attraction and Compromise Effects , 2009 .

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

[12]  Jérôme Lang,et al.  Logical representation of preferences for group decision making , 2000, KR.

[13]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Logic Based Merging , 2011, J. Philos. Log..

[14]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Toward a Logic for Qualitative Decision Theory , 1994, KR.

[15]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Inconsistency Management and Prioritized Syntax-Based Entailment , 1993, IJCAI.

[16]  Christian List,et al.  A reason-based theory of rational choice , 2013 .

[17]  Pierre-Yves Schobbens,et al.  Operators and Laws for Combining Preference Relations , 2002, J. Log. Comput..

[18]  Jérôme Lang,et al.  Logical Preference Representation and Combinatorial Vote , 2004, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[19]  Ulrich Endriss,et al.  Ontology Merging as Social Choice , 2011, CLIMA.

[20]  Jérôme Lang,et al.  Expressive Power and Succinctness of Propositional Languages for Preference Representation , 2004, KR.

[21]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Dynamic logic of preference upgrade , 2007, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[22]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Everything Else Being Equal: A Modal Logic for Ceteris Paribus Preferences , 2009, J. Philos. Log..

[23]  Wulf Gaertner,et al.  A Primer in Social Choice Theory: Revised Edition , 2009 .

[24]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Combining Fuzzy Information from Multiple Systems , 1999, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[25]  Mary Rouncefield,et al.  Condorcet's Paradox , 1989 .

[26]  Moni Naor,et al.  Optimal aggregation algorithms for middleware , 2001, PODS '01.

[27]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Logic of Violations: A gentzen systems for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations , 2006 .