-
Apportionment with Weighted Seats
Authors:
Julian Chingoma,
Ulle Endriss,
Ronald de Haan,
Adrian Haret,
Jan Maly
Abstract:
Apportionment is the task of assigning resources to entities with different entitlements in a fair manner, and specifically a manner that is as proportional as possible. The best-known application concerns the assignment of parliamentary seats to political parties based on their share in the popular vote. Here we enrich the standard model of apportionment by associating each seat with a weight tha…
▽ More
Apportionment is the task of assigning resources to entities with different entitlements in a fair manner, and specifically a manner that is as proportional as possible. The best-known application concerns the assignment of parliamentary seats to political parties based on their share in the popular vote. Here we enrich the standard model of apportionment by associating each seat with a weight that reflects the value of that seat, for example because seats come with different roles, such as chair or treasurer, that have different (objective) values. We define several apportionment methods and natural fairness requirements for this new setting, and study the extent to which our methods satisfy our requirements. Our findings show that full fairness is harder to achieve than in the standard apportionment setting. At the same time, for relaxations of those requirements we can achieve stronger results than in the more general model of weighted fair division, where the values of objects are subjective.
△ Less
Submitted 28 May, 2024;
originally announced May 2024.
-
Voting with Partial Orders: The Plurality and Anti-Plurality Classes
Authors:
Federico Fioravanti,
Ulle Endriss
Abstract:
The Plurality rule for linear orders selects the alternatives most frequently appearing in the first position of those orders, while the Anti-Plurality rule selects the alternatives least often occurring in the final position. We explore extensions of these rules to partial orders, offering axiomatic characterizations for these extensions.
The Plurality rule for linear orders selects the alternatives most frequently appearing in the first position of those orders, while the Anti-Plurality rule selects the alternatives least often occurring in the final position. We explore extensions of these rules to partial orders, offering axiomatic characterizations for these extensions.
△ Less
Submitted 4 June, 2024; v1 submitted 26 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
Enabling the Digital Democratic Revival: A Research Program for Digital Democracy
Authors:
Davide Grossi,
Ulrike Hahn,
Michael Mäs,
Andreas Nitsche,
Jan Behrens,
Niclas Boehmer,
Markus Brill,
Ulle Endriss,
Umberto Grandi,
Adrian Haret,
Jobst Heitzig,
Nicolien Janssens,
Catholijn M. Jonker,
Marijn A. Keijzer,
Axel Kistner,
Martin Lackner,
Alexandra Lieben,
Anna Mikhaylovskaya,
Pradeep K. Murukannaiah,
Carlo Proietti,
Manon Revel,
Élise Rouméas,
Ehud Shapiro,
Gogulapati Sreedurga,
Björn Swierczek
, et al. (4 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
This white paper outlines a long-term scientific vision for the development of digital-democracy technology. We contend that if digital democracy is to meet the ambition of enabling a participatory renewal in our societies, then a comprehensive multi-methods research effort is required that could, over the years, support its development in a democratically principled, empirically and computational…
▽ More
This white paper outlines a long-term scientific vision for the development of digital-democracy technology. We contend that if digital democracy is to meet the ambition of enabling a participatory renewal in our societies, then a comprehensive multi-methods research effort is required that could, over the years, support its development in a democratically principled, empirically and computationally informed way. The paper is co-authored by an international and interdisciplinary team of researchers and arose from the Lorentz Center Workshop on ``Algorithmic Technology for Democracy'' (Leiden, October 2022).
△ Less
Submitted 30 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
Epistemic Selection of Costly Alternatives: The Case of Participatory Budgeting
Authors:
Simon Rey,
Ulle Endriss
Abstract:
We initiate the study of voting rules for participatory budgeting using the so-called epistemic approach, where one interprets votes as noisy reflections of some ground truth regarding the objectively best set of projects to fund. Using this approach, we first show that both the most studied rules in the literature and the most widely used rule in practice cannot be justified on epistemic grounds:…
▽ More
We initiate the study of voting rules for participatory budgeting using the so-called epistemic approach, where one interprets votes as noisy reflections of some ground truth regarding the objectively best set of projects to fund. Using this approach, we first show that both the most studied rules in the literature and the most widely used rule in practice cannot be justified on epistemic grounds: they cannot be interpreted as maximum likelihood estimators, whatever assumptions we make about the accuracy of voters. Focusing then on welfare-maximising rules, we obtain both positive and negative results regarding epistemic guarantees.
△ Less
Submitted 4 September, 2023; v1 submitted 21 April, 2023;
originally announced April 2023.
-
Fairness in Participatory Budgeting via Equality of Resources
Authors:
Jan Maly,
Simon Rey,
Ulle Endriss,
Martin Lackner
Abstract:
We introduce a family of normative principles to assess fairness in the context of participatory budgeting. These principles are based on the fundamental idea that budget allocations should be fair in terms of the resources invested into meeting the wishes of individual voters. This is in contrast to earlier proposals that are based on specific assumptions regarding the satisfaction of voters with…
▽ More
We introduce a family of normative principles to assess fairness in the context of participatory budgeting. These principles are based on the fundamental idea that budget allocations should be fair in terms of the resources invested into meeting the wishes of individual voters. This is in contrast to earlier proposals that are based on specific assumptions regarding the satisfaction of voters with a given budget allocation. We analyse these new principles in axiomatic, algorithmic, and experimental terms.
△ Less
Submitted 20 February, 2023; v1 submitted 16 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
Shortlisting Rules and Incentives in an End-to-End Model for Participatory Budgeting
Authors:
Simon Rey,
Ulle Endriss,
Ronald de Haan
Abstract:
We introduce an end-to-end model of participatory budgeting grounded in social choice theory. This model accounts for both the first stage, in which participants propose projects to be shortlisted, and the second stage, in which they vote on which of the shortlisted projects should be funded. We introduce several shortlisting rules for the first stage and we analyse them in both normative and algo…
▽ More
We introduce an end-to-end model of participatory budgeting grounded in social choice theory. This model accounts for both the first stage, in which participants propose projects to be shortlisted, and the second stage, in which they vote on which of the shortlisted projects should be funded. We introduce several shortlisting rules for the first stage and we analyse them in both normative and algorithmic terms. Our main focus is on the incentives of participants to engage in strategic behaviour, especially in the first stage, in which they need to reason about how their proposals will impact the range of strategies available to everyone in the second stage.
△ Less
Submitted 6 September, 2023; v1 submitted 20 October, 2020;
originally announced October 2020.
-
Lecture Notes on Fair Division
Authors:
Ulle Endriss
Abstract:
Fair division is the problem of dividing one or several goods amongst two or more agents in a way that satisfies a suitable fairness criterion. These Notes provide a succinct introduction to the field. We cover three main topics. First, we need to define what is to be understood by a "fair" allocation of goods to individuals. We present an overview of the most important fairness criteria (as well…
▽ More
Fair division is the problem of dividing one or several goods amongst two or more agents in a way that satisfies a suitable fairness criterion. These Notes provide a succinct introduction to the field. We cover three main topics. First, we need to define what is to be understood by a "fair" allocation of goods to individuals. We present an overview of the most important fairness criteria (as well as the closely related criteria for economic efficiency) developed in the literature, together with a short discussion of their axiomatic foundations. Second, we give an introduction to cake-cutting procedures as an example of methods for fairly dividing a single divisible resource amongst a group of individuals. Third, we discuss the combinatorial optimisation problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods to a group of agents, covering both centralised algorithms (similar to auctions) and a distributed approach based on negotiation.
While the classical literature on fair division has largely developed within Economics, these Notes are specifically written for readers with a background in Computer Science or similar, and who may be (or may wish to be) engaged in research in Artificial Intelligence, Multiagent Systems, or Computational Social Choice. References for further reading, as well as a small number of exercises, are included.
Notes prepared for a tutorial at the 11th European Agent Systems Summer School (EASSS-2009), Torino, Italy, 31 August and 1 September 2009. Updated for a tutorial at the COST-ADT Doctoral School on Computational Social Choice, Estoril, Portugal, 9--14 April 2010.
△ Less
Submitted 11 June, 2018;
originally announced June 2018.
-
Preservation of Semantic Properties during the Aggregation of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
Authors:
Weiwei Chen,
Ulle Endriss
Abstract:
An abstract argumentation framework can be used to model the argumentative stance of an agent at a high level of abstraction, by indicating for every pair of arguments that is being considered in a debate whether the first attacks the second. When modelling a group of agents engaged in a debate, we may wish to aggregate their individual argumentation frameworks to obtain a single such framework th…
▽ More
An abstract argumentation framework can be used to model the argumentative stance of an agent at a high level of abstraction, by indicating for every pair of arguments that is being considered in a debate whether the first attacks the second. When modelling a group of agents engaged in a debate, we may wish to aggregate their individual argumentation frameworks to obtain a single such framework that reflects the consensus of the group. Even when agents disagree on many details, there may well be high-level agreement on important semantic properties, such as the acceptability of a given argument. Using techniques from social choice theory, we analyse under what circumstances such semantic properties agreed upon by the individual agents can be preserved under aggregation.
△ Less
Submitted 27 July, 2017;
originally announced July 2017.
-
Graph Aggregation
Authors:
Ulle Endriss,
Umberto Grandi
Abstract:
Graph aggregation is the process of computing a single output graph that constitutes a good compromise between several input graphs, each provided by a different source. One needs to perform graph aggregation in a wide variety of situations, e.g., when applying a voting rule (graphs as preference orders), when consolidating conflicting views regarding the relationships between arguments in a debat…
▽ More
Graph aggregation is the process of computing a single output graph that constitutes a good compromise between several input graphs, each provided by a different source. One needs to perform graph aggregation in a wide variety of situations, e.g., when applying a voting rule (graphs as preference orders), when consolidating conflicting views regarding the relationships between arguments in a debate (graphs as abstract argumentation frameworks), or when computing a consensus between several alternative clusterings of a given dataset (graphs as equivalence relations). In this paper, we introduce a formal framework for graph aggregation grounded in social choice theory. Our focus is on understanding which properties shared by the individual input graphs will transfer to the output graph returned by a given aggregation rule. We consider both common properties of graphs, such as transitivity and reflexivity, and arbitrary properties expressible in certain fragments of modal logic. Our results establish several connections between the types of properties preserved under aggregation and the choice-theoretic axioms satisfied by the rules used. The most important of these results is a powerful impossibility theorem that generalises Arrow's seminal result for the aggregation of preference orders to a large collection of different types of graphs.
△ Less
Submitted 13 September, 2016;
originally announced September 2016.
-
Complexity of Judgment Aggregation
Authors:
Ulle Endriss,
Umberto Grandi,
Daniele Porello
Abstract:
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…
▽ More
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.
△ Less
Submitted 22 January, 2014;
originally announced January 2014.
-
Automated Search for Impossibility Theorems in Social Choice Theory: Ranking Sets of Objects
Authors:
Christian Geist,
Ulle Endriss
Abstract:
We present a method for using standard techniques from satisfiability checking to automatically verify and discover theorems in an area of economic theory known as ranking sets of objects. The key question in this area, which has important applications in social choice theory and decision making under uncertainty, is how to extend an agents preferences over a number of objects to a preference rela…
▽ More
We present a method for using standard techniques from satisfiability checking to automatically verify and discover theorems in an area of economic theory known as ranking sets of objects. The key question in this area, which has important applications in social choice theory and decision making under uncertainty, is how to extend an agents preferences over a number of objects to a preference relation over nonempty sets of such objects. Certain combinations of seemingly natural principles for this kind of preference extension can result in logical inconsistencies, which has led to a number of important impossibility theorems. We first prove a general result that shows that for a wide range of such principles, characterised by their syntactic form when expressed in a many-sorted first-order logic, any impossibility exhibited at a fixed (small) domain size will necessarily extend to the general case. We then show how to formulate candidates for impossibility theorems at a fixed domain size in propositional logic, which in turn enables us to automatically search for (general) impossibility theorems using a SAT solver. When applied to a space of 20 principles for preference extension familiar from the literature, this method yields a total of 84 impossibility theorems, including both known and nontrivial new results.
△ Less
Submitted 16 January, 2014;
originally announced January 2014.
-
Negotiating Socially Optimal Allocations of Resources
Authors:
U. Endriss,
N. Maudet,
F. Sadri,
F. Toni
Abstract:
A multiagent system may be thought of as an artificial society of autonomous software agents and we can apply concepts borrowed from welfare economics and social choice theory to assess the social welfare of such an agent society. In this paper, we study an abstract negotiation framework where agents can agree on multilateral deals to exchange bundles of indivisible resources. We then analyse how…
▽ More
A multiagent system may be thought of as an artificial society of autonomous software agents and we can apply concepts borrowed from welfare economics and social choice theory to assess the social welfare of such an agent society. In this paper, we study an abstract negotiation framework where agents can agree on multilateral deals to exchange bundles of indivisible resources. We then analyse how these deals affect social welfare for different instances of the basic framework and different interpretations of the concept of social welfare itself. In particular, we show how certain classes of deals are both sufficient and necessary to guarantee that a socially optimal allocation of resources will be reached eventually.
△ Less
Submitted 28 September, 2011;
originally announced September 2011.
-
The CIFF Proof Procedure for Abductive Logic Programming with Constraints: Theory, Implementation and Experiments
Authors:
P. Mancarella,
G. Terreni,
F. Sadri,
F. Toni,
U. Endriss
Abstract:
We present the CIFF proof procedure for abductive logic programming with constraints, and we prove its correctness. CIFF is an extension of the IFF proof procedure for abductive logic programming, relaxing the original restrictions over variable quantification (allowedness conditions) and incorporating a constraint solver to deal with numerical constraints as in constraint logic programming. Fin…
▽ More
We present the CIFF proof procedure for abductive logic programming with constraints, and we prove its correctness. CIFF is an extension of the IFF proof procedure for abductive logic programming, relaxing the original restrictions over variable quantification (allowedness conditions) and incorporating a constraint solver to deal with numerical constraints as in constraint logic programming. Finally, we describe the CIFF system, comparing it with state of the art abductive systems and answer set solvers and showing how to use it to program some applications. (To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming - TPLP).
△ Less
Submitted 5 June, 2009;
originally announced June 2009.
