arXiv subjects

Umberto Grandi

Publications and source records attributed to Umberto Grandi.

33 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2021

Unravelling multi-agent ranked delegations

We introduce a voting model with multi-agent ranked delegations. This model generalises liquid democracy in two aspects: first, an agent's delegation can use the votes of multiple other agents to determine their own -- for instance, an agent's vote may correspond to the majority outcome of the votes of a trusted group of agents; second, agents can submit a ranking over multiple delegations, so that a backup delegation can be used when their preferred delegations are involved in cycles. The main focus of this paper is the study of unravelling procedures that transform the delegation ballots received from the agents into a profile of direct votes, from which a winning alternative can then be determined by using a standard voting rule. We propose and study six such unravelling procedures, two based on optimisation and four using a greedy approach. We study both algorithmic and axiomatic properties, as well as related computational complexity problems of our unravelling procedures for different restrictions on the types of ballots that the agents can submit.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2019

Aggregation in Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks

Value-based argumentation enhances a classical abstract argumentation graph - in which arguments are modelled as nodes connected by directed arrows called attacks - with labels on arguments, called values, and an ordering on values, called audience, to provide a more fine-grained justification of the attack relation. With more than one agent facing such an argumentation problem, agents may differ in their ranking of values. When needing to reach a collective view, such agents face a dilemma between two equally justifiable approaches: aggregating their views at the level of values, or aggregating their attack relations, remaining therefore at the level of the graphs. We explore the strenghts and limitations of both approaches, employing techniques from preference aggregation and graph aggregation, and propose a third possibility aggregating rankings extracted from given attack relations.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2019

Social Choice Methods for Database Aggregation

Knowledge can be represented compactly in multiple ways, from a set of propositional formulas, to a Kripke model, to a database. In this paper we study the aggregation of information coming from multiple sources, each source submitting a database modelled as a first-order relational structure. In the presence of integrity constraints, we identify classes of aggregators that respect them in the aggregated database, provided these are satisfied in all individual databases. We also characterise languages for first-order queries on which the answer to a query on the aggregated database coincides with the aggregation of the answers to the query obtained on each individual database. This contribution is meant to be a first step on the application of techniques from social choice theory to knowledge representation in databases.

cs.LO↗

arXiv2018

Agent-Mediated Social Choice

Direct democracy is often proposed as a possible solution to the 21st-century problems of democracy. However, this suggestion clashes with the size and complexity of 21st-century societies, entailing an excessive cognitive burden on voters, who would have to submit informed opinions on an excessive number of issues. In this paper I argue for the development of voting avatars, autonomous agents debating and voting on behalf of each citizen. Theoretical research from artificial intelligence, and in particular multiagent systems and computational social choice, proposes 21st-century techniques for this purpose, from the compact representation of a voter's preferences and values, to the development of voting procedures for autonomous agents use only.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2018

Database Aggregation

Knowledge can be represented compactly in a multitude ways, from a set of propositional formulas, to a Kripke model, to a database. In this paper we study the aggregation of information coming from multiple sources, each source submitting a database modelled as a first-order relational structure. In the presence of an integrity constraint, we identify classes of aggregators that respect it in the aggregated database, provided all individual databases satisfy it. We also characterise languages for first-order queries on which the answer to queries on the aggregated database coincides with the aggregation of the answers to the query obtained on each individual database. This contribution is meant to be a first step on the application of techniques from rational choice theory to knowledge representation in databases.

cs.DB↗

arXiv2017

Relaxing Exclusive Control in Boolean Games

In the typical framework for boolean games (BG) each player can change the truth value of some propositional atoms, while attempting to make her goal true. In standard BG goals are propositional formulas, whereas in iterated BG goals are formulas of Linear Temporal Logic. Both notions of BG are characterised by the fact that agents have exclusive control over their set of atoms, meaning that no two agents can control the same atom. In the present contribution we drop the exclusivity assumption and explore structures where an atom can be controlled by multiple agents. We introduce Concurrent Game Structures with Shared Propositional Control (CGS-SPC) and show that they ac- count for several classes of repeated games, including iterated boolean games, influence games, and aggregation games. Our main result shows that, as far as verification is concerned, CGS-SPC can be reduced to concurrent game structures with exclusive control. This result provides a polynomial reduction for the model checking problem of specifications in Alternating-time Temporal Logic on CGS-SPC.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2017

Cognitive Hierarchy and Voting Manipulation

By the Gibbard--Satterthwaite theorem, every reasonable voting rule for three or more alternatives is susceptible to manipulation: there exist elections where one or more voters can change the election outcome in their favour by unilaterally modifying their vote. When a given election admits several such voters, strategic voting becomes a game among potential manipulators: a manipulative vote that leads to a better outcome when other voters are truthful may lead to disastrous results when other voters choose to manipulate as well. We consider this situation from the perspective of a boundedly rational voter, and use the cognitive hierarchy framework to identify good strategies. We then investigate the associated algorithmic questions under the k-approval voting rule. We obtain positive algorithmic results for k=1 and 2, and NP- and coNP-hardness results for k>3.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2017

Gibbard-Satterthwaite Games for k-Approval Voting Rules

The Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem implies the existence of voters, called manipulators, who can change the election outcome in their favour by voting strategically. When a given preference profile admits several such manipulators, voting becomes a game played by these voters, who have to reason strategically about each others' actions. To complicate the game even further, counter-manipulators may then try to counteract the actions of manipulators. Our voters are boundedly rational and do not think beyond manipulating or countermanipulating. We call these games Gibbard--Satterthwaite Games. In this paper we look for conditions that guarantee the existence of a Nash equilibria in pure strategies.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2017

Equilibrium Refinement through Negotiation in Binary Voting

We study voting games on binary issues, where voters hold an objective over the outcome of the collective decision and are allowed, before the vote takes place, to negotiate their voting strategy with the other participants. We analyse the voters' rational behaviour in the resulting two-phase game, showing under what conditions undesirable equilibria can be removed and desirable ones sustained as a consequence of the pre-vote phase.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2016

Graph Aggregation

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.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2016

A network-based rating system and its resistance to bribery

We study a rating system in which a set of individuals (e.g., the customers of a restaurant) evaluate a given service (e.g, the restaurant), with their aggregated opinion determining the probability of all individuals to use the service and thus its generated revenue. We explicitly model the influence relation by a social network, with individuals being influenced by the evaluation of their trusted peers. On top of that we allow a malicious service provider (e.g., the restaurant owner) to bribe some individuals, i.e., to invest a part of his or her expected income to modify their opinion, therefore influencing his or her final gain. We analyse the effect of bribing strategies under various constraints, and we show under what conditions the system is bribery-proof, i.e., no bribing strategy yields a strictly positive expected gain to the service provider.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2016

Strategic disclosure of opinions on a social network

We study the strategic aspects of social influence in a society of agents linked by a trust network, introducing a new class of games called games of influence. A game of influence is an infinite repeated game with incomplete information in which, at each stage of interaction, an agent can make her opinions visible (public) or invisible (private) in order to influence other agents' opinions. The influence process is mediated by a trust network, as we assume that the opinion of a given agent is only affected by the opinions of those agents that she considers trustworthy (i.e., the agents in the trust network that are directly linked to her). Each agent is endowed with a goal, expressed in a suitable temporal language inspired from linear temporal logic (LTL). We show that games of influence provide a simple abstraction to explore the effects of the trust network structure on the agents' behaviour, by considering solution concepts from game-theory such as Nash equilibrium, weak dominance and winning strategies.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2014

The Common Structure of Paradoxes in Aggregation Theory

In this paper we analyse some of the classical paradoxes in Social Choice Theory (namely, the Condorcet paradox, the discursive dilemma, the Ostrogorski paradox and the multiple election paradox) using a general framework for the study of aggregation problems called binary aggregation with integrity constraints. We provide a definition of paradox that is general enough to account for the four cases mentioned, and identify a common structure in the syntactic properties of the rationality assumptions that lie behind such paradoxes. We generalise this observation by providing a full characterisation of the set of rationality assumptions on which the majority rule does not generate a paradox.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2014

Complexity of Judgment Aggregation

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.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2013

Restricted Manipulation in Iterative Voting: Convergence and Condorcet Efficiency

In collective decision making, where a voting rule is used to take a collective decision among a group of agents, manipulation by one or more agents is usually considered negative behavior to be avoided, or at least to be made computationally difficult for the agents to perform. However, there are scenarios in which a restricted form of manipulation can instead be beneficial. In this paper we consider the iterative version of several voting rules, where at each step one agent is allowed to manipulate by modifying his ballot according to a set of restricted manipulation moves which are computationally easy and require little information to be performed. We prove convergence of iterative voting rules when restricted manipulation is allowed, and we present experiments showing that most iterative voting rules have a higher Condorcet efficiency than their non-iterative version.

cs.AI↗