Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 1015–1033 | Cite as

Preference Elicitation for Group Decisions Using the Borda Voting Rule

  • Lihi Naamani-DeryEmail author
  • Inon Golan
  • Meir Kalech
  • Lior Rokach


This paper addresses the issue of preference elicitation for group decision making using voting rules. We propose a general, domain-free framework for preference management, where the goal is to minimize the communication cost with the users. We introduce novel heuristics and show how they can operate under a ranking voting protocol, specifically under the Borda protocol. We suggest an interactive incremental framework where at each step one user is queried for her ranking order of two items. We propose two approaches for heuristics that determine what query to select next (i.e., whom to query regarding what item or items). One heuristic computes the information gain of each potential query. The other heuristic uses the probability distribution of the voters’ preferences to select the candidate most likely to win and the voter that is expected to maximize the score of that item. Both heuristics rely on probabilistic rating distributions. We show how these distributions can be estimated. The rating distributions are updated iteratively, allowing their accuracy to increase over time. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework by evaluating the different heuristics on two real-world datasets.


Preference elicitation Social choice Decision support systems 


  1. Bachrach Y, Betzler N, Faliszewski P (2010) Probabilistic possible winner determination. In: Proceedings of the 24th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI), Atlanta, GA, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. Balakrishnan S, Chopra S (2012) Two of a kind or the ratings game? Adaptive pairwise preferences and latent factor models. Front Comput Sci 6(2):197–208Google Scholar
  3. Bellman R (1962) Dynamic programming treatment of the travelling salesman problem. J ACM 9(1):61–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Betzler N, Hemmann S, Niedermeier R (2009) A multivariate complexity analysis of determining possible winners given incomplete votes. In: Proceedings of the 21st international joint conferences on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), 2(3):7Google Scholar
  5. Betzler N, Niedermeier R, Woeginger GJ (2011) Unweighted coalitional manipulation under the Borda rule is NP-hard. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), volume one, pp 55–60. AAAI PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Braziunas D, Boutilier C (2009) Elicitation of factored utilities. AI Mag 29(4):79Google Scholar
  7. Chen L, Pu P (2012) Critiquing-based recommenders: survey and emerging trends. User Model User-Adapt Interact 22(1–2):125–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen S, Lin T, Lee L (2014) Group decision making using incomplete fuzzy preference relations based on the additive consistency and the order consistency. Inf Sci 259:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conitzer V, Sandholm T (2005) Communication complexity of common voting rules. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on electronic commerce. ACM, New York, pp 78–87Google Scholar
  10. Davies J, Katsirelos G, Narodytska N, Walsh T (2011) Complexity of and algorithms for Borda manipulation. In: Proceedings of the 25th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pp 657–662Google Scholar
  11. de Campos LM, Fernández-Luna JM, Huete JF, Rueda-Morales MA (2009) Managing uncertainty in group recommending processes. User Model User-Adapt Interact 19(3):207–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ding N, Lin F (2013) Voting with partial information: what questions to ask?. In: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS), pp 1237–1238Google Scholar
  13. Fishman G (1996) Monte Carlo: concepts, algorithms, and applications. Technometrics 39(3):338–338Google Scholar
  14. Gelain M, Pini MS, Rossi F, Venable KB (2007) Dealing with incomplete preferences in soft constraint problems. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming. Springer, Berlin, pp 286–300Google Scholar
  15. Hazon N, Aumann Y, Kraus S, Wooldridge M (2008) Evaluation of election outcomes under uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), vol 2, pp 959–966Google Scholar
  16. Herrera-Viedma E, Chiclana F, Herrera F, Alonso S (2007) Group decision-making model with incomplete fuzzy preference relations based on additive consistency. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 37(1):176–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kalech M, Kraus S, Kaminka GA, Goldman CV (2011) Practical voting rules with partial information. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 22(1):151–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kamishima T, Kazawa H, Akaho S (2005) Supervised ordering-an empirical survey. In: Proceeding of the 5th IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM), pp 673–676Google Scholar
  19. Konczak K, Lang J (2005) Voting procedures with incomplete preferences. In: Proceedings of the multidisciplinary workshop on advances in preference handling in the 19th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), vol 20, Edinburgh, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  20. Koren Y, Sill J (2011) OrdRec: an ordinal model for predicting personalized item rating distributions. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on recommender systems (RECSYS). ACM, New York, pp 117–124Google Scholar
  21. Lang J, Pini MS, Rossi F, Venable KB, Walsh T (2007) Winner determination in sequential majority voting. In: Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), pp 1372–1377Google Scholar
  22. Lu T, Boutilier C (2011a) Learning Mallows models with pairwise preferences. In: Proceeding of the 28th international conference on machine learning (ICML), Bellevue, WAGoogle Scholar
  23. Lu T, Boutilier C (2011b) Vote elicitation with probabilistic preference models: empirical estimation and cost tradeoffs. In: Algorithmic decision theory, pp 135–149Google Scholar
  24. Naamani-Dery L, Kalceh M, Rokach L, Shapira B (2014) Reaching a joint decision with minimal elicitation of voter preferences. Inf Sci 278:466–487Google Scholar
  25. Nisgav A, Patt-Shamir B (2011) Improved collaborative filtering. In: Algorithms and computation, pp 425–434Google Scholar
  26. Pfeiffer T, Gao XA, Mao A, Chen Y, Rand DG (2012) Adaptive polling for information aggregation. In: 26th AAAI conference on artificial intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  27. Pini MS, Rossi F, Venable KB, Walsh T (2009) Aggregating partially ordered preferences. J Log Comput 19(3):475–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Popescu G, Pu P (2013) Group recommender systems as a voting problem. In: Online communities and social computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 412–421Google Scholar
  29. Rodríguez R, Martínez ML, Herrera F (2013) A group decision making model dealing with comparative linguistic expressions based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Inf Sci 241:28–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rossi F, Venable KB, Walsh T (2011) A short introduction to preferences: between artificial intelligence and social choice. Synth Lect Artif Intell Mach Learn 5(4):1–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shannon CE (2001) A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mob Comput Commun Rev 5(1):3–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stillwell WG, Seaver DA, Schwartz JP (1982) Expert estimation of human error probabilities in nuclear power plant operations: a review of probability assessment and scaling. Sandia National Labs, AlbuquerqueGoogle Scholar
  33. Suzumura K, Arrow KJ, Sen A (2010) Handbook of social choice and welfare, vol 2. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  34. Walsh T (2007) Uncertainty in preference elicitation and aggregation. In: Proceeding of the national conference on artificial intelligence, vol 22. No. 1. 3. Menlo Park, CA; Cambridge, MA; London; AAAI Press; MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  35. Yu K, Schwaighofer A, Tresp V, Xu X, Kriegel HP (2004) Probabilistic memory-based collaborative filtering. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 16(1):56–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lihi Naamani-Dery
    • 1
    Email author
  • Inon Golan
    • 2
  • Meir Kalech
    • 2
  • Lior Rokach
    • 2
  1. 1.Industrial Engineering and Management DepartmentAriel UniversityArielIsrael
  2. 2.Information Systems Engineering DepartmentBen Gurion UniversityBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations