Skip to main content

Aggregating Conditionally Lexicographic Preferences on Multi-issue Domains

  • Conference paper
Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2012)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 7514))

Abstract

One approach to voting on several interrelated issues consists in using a language for compact preference representation, from which the voters’ preferences are elicited and aggregated. A language usually comes with a domain restriction. We consider a well-known restriction, namely, conditionally lexicographic preferences, where both the relative importance between issues and the preference between values of an issue may depend on the values taken by more important issues. The naturally associated language consists in describing conditional importance and conditional preference by trees together with conditional preference tables. In this paper, we study the aggregation of conditionally lexicographic preferences, for several voting rules and several restrictions of the framework. We characterize computational complexity for some popular cases, and show that in many of them, computing the winner reduces in a very natural way to a maxsat problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahlert, M.: Aggregation of lexicographic orderings. Homo Oeconomicus 25(3/4), 301–317 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Airiau, S., Endriss, U., Grandi, U., Porello, D., Uckelman, J.: Aggregating dependency graphs into voting agendas in multi-issue elections. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2011, pp. 18–23 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Booth, R., Chevaleyre, Y., Lang, J., Mengin, J., Sombattheera, C.: Learning conditionally lexicographic preference relations. In: Proceeding of ECAI 2010, pp. 269–274 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boutilier, C., Brafman, R., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H., Poole, D.: CP-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus statements. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 21, 135–191 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C., Shimony, S.E.: On graphical modeling of preference and importance. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 25, 389–424 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brams, S., Kilgour, D., Zwicker, W.: The paradox of multiple elections. Social Choice and Welfare 15(2), 211–236 (1998)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Conitzer, V., Xia, L.: Approximating common voting rules by sequential voting in multi-issue domains. In: Proceedings of KR 2012 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dombi, J., Imreh, C., Vincze, N.: Learning lexicographic orders. European Journal of Operational Research 183, 748–756 (2007)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Garey, M., Johnson, D.: Computers and Intractability. W. H. Freeman and Company (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gigerenzer, G., Goldstein, D.: Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review 103(4), 650–669 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jaumard, B., Simeone, B.: On the complexity of the maximum satisfiability problem for horn formulas. Information Processing Letters 26(1), 1–4 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Kohli, R., Krishnamurti, R., Mirchandani, P.: The minimum satisfiability problem. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 7(2), 275–283 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Lacy, D., Niou, E.M.: A problem with referendums. Journal of Theoretical Politics 12(1), 5–31 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lang, J., Xia, L.: Sequential composition of voting rules in multi-issue domains. Mathematical Social Sciences 57(3), 304–324 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Pozza, G.D., Pini, M.S., Rossi, F., Venable, K.B.: Multi-agent soft constraint aggregation via sequential voting. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2011, pp. 172–177 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ryvchin, V., Strichman, O.: Faster Extraction of High-Level Minimal Unsatisfiable Cores. In: Sakallah, K.A., Simon, L. (eds.) SAT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6695, pp. 174–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Schmitt, M., Martignon, L.: On the complexity of learning lexicographic strategies. Journal of Machine Learning Research 7, 55–83 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Yaman, F., Walsh, T., Littman, M., desJardins, M.: Democratic approximation of lexicographic preference models. In: Proceedings of ICML 2008, pp. 1200–1207 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lang, J., Mengin, J., Xia, L. (2012). Aggregating Conditionally Lexicographic Preferences on Multi-issue Domains. In: Milano, M. (eds) Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming. CP 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7514. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33558-7_69

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33558-7_69

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-33557-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-33558-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics