Advertisement

Logical Preference Representation and Combinatorial Vote

  • Jérôme Lang
Article

Abstract

We introduce the notion of combinatorial vote, where a group of agents (or voters) is supposed to express preferences and come to a common decision concerning a set of non-independent variables to assign. We study two key issues pertaining to combinatorial vote, namely preference representation and the automated choice of an optimal decision. For each of these issues, we briefly review the state of the art, we try to define the main problems to be solved and identify their computational complexity.

preference representation computational complexity group decision making 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    F. Bacchus and A. Grove, Graphical models for preference and utility, in: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI'95) (1995) pp. 3–10.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    F. Bacchus and A. Grove, Utility independence in a qualitative decision theory, in: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'96) (1996) pp. 542–552.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. Benferhat, C. Cayrol, D. Dubois, J. Lang and H. Prade, Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment, in: Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'93) (1993) pp. 640–645.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, S. Kaci and H. Prade, Bipolar representation and fusion of preference in the possibilistic logic framework, in: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI2002) (2002) pp. 421–429.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    C. Boutilier, Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory, in: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'94) (1994) pp. 75–86.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    C. Boutilier, F. Bacchus and R. Brafman, UCP-networks: a directed graphical representation of conditional utilities, in: Proceedings of the 17th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-2001) (2001) pp. 56–64.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    C. Boutilier, R. Brafman, H. Hoos and D. Poole, Reasoning with conditional ceteris paribusstatements, in: Proceedings of the 15th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI'99) (1999) pp. 71–80.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    C. Boutilier and H. Hoos, Bidding languages for combinatorial auctions, in: Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'01) (2001) pp. 1211–1217.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. Brafman and N. Friedman, On decision-theoretic foundations for defaults, in: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'95) (1995) pp. 1458–1465.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    G. Brewka, S. Benferhat and D. Le Berre, Qualitative choice logic, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2002) (2002) pp. 158–169.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    T. Bylander, The computational complexity of propositional STRIPS planning, Artificial Intelligence 69 (1994) 161–204.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Cadoli, F. Donini, P. Liberatore and M. Schaerf, Comparing space efficiency of propositional knowledge representation formalisms, in: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'96) (1996) pp. 364–373.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J.-Y. Cai, T. Gundermann, J. Hartmanis, L. Hemachandra, V. Sewelson, K. W. Wagner and G. Wechsung, The Boolean hierarchy I: structural properties, SIAM Journal on Computing 17(6) (1988) 1232–1252.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    C. Cayrol, M. Lagasquie-Schiex and T. Schiex, Nonmonotonic reasoning: from complexity to algorithms, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 22(3-4) (1998) 207–236.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    V. Conitzer, J. Lang and T. Sandholm, How many candidates are required to make an election hard to manipulate?, in: Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK-03) (2003) pp. 201–214.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    V. Conitzer and T. Sandholm, Complexity of manipulating elections with few candidates, in: Proceedings of the 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-02) (2002) pp. 314–319.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    V. Conitzer and T. Sandholm, Vote elicitation: complexity and strategy-proofness, in: Proceedings of the 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-02) (2002) pp. 392–397.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    S. Coste-Marquis, J. Lang, P. Liberatore and P. Marquis, Expressivity and succinctness power of preference representation language, Manuscript (2003).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    M. de Condorcet, Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix, Paris (1785).Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    C. Domshlak, Modelling and reasoning about preferences with CP-nets, Ph.D. thesis, Ben-Gurion University (2002).Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    C. Domshlak and R. Brafman, CP-nets: reasoning and consistency testing, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2002) (2002) pp. 121–132.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    J. Doyle and R. Thomason, Background to qualitative decision theory, AI Magazine 20 (1999) 55–68.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    J. Doyle and M.P. Wellman, Preferential semantics for goals, in: Proceedings of AAAI-91 (1991) pp. 698–703.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    J. Doyle, M.P. Wellman and Y. Shoham, A logic of relative desire (preliminary report), in: Proceedings of the 6th Intern. Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (1991) pp. 16–31.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    D. Dubois, H. Fargier and P. Perny, On the limits of ordinality in decision making, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2002) (2002) pp. 133–144.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    T. Eiter and G. Gottlob, On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates and counterfactuals, Artificial Intelligence 57 (1992) 227–270.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    T. Eiter and T. Lukasiewicz, Complexity results for default reasoning from conditional knowledge bases, in: Proceedings of KR-2000 (2000) pp. 62–73.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    N. Friedman and J. Halpern, On the complexity of conditional logics, in: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'94) (1994) pp. 202–213.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    H. Geffner, Default Reasoning: Causal and Conditional Theories (MIT Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    S. Konieczny, J. Lang and P. Marquis, Distance-based merging: a general framework and some complexity results, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2002) (2002) pp. 97–108.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    S. Konieczny and R. Pino-Pérez, On the logic of merging, in: Proc. of KR'98 (1998) pp. 488–498.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    S. Kraus, D. Lehmann and M. Magidor, Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics, Artificial Intelligence 44 (1990) 167–207.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    P. La Mura and Y. Shoham, Expected utility networks, in: Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI'99) (1999) pp. 366–373.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    C. Lafage and J. Lang, Logical representation of preferences for group decision making, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2000) (2000) pp. 457–468.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    C. Lafage and J. Lang, Propositional distances and preference representation, in: Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2001), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2143 (Springer, 2001) pp. 48–59.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    J. Lang, Conditional desires and utilities-an alternative logical approach to qualitative decision theory, in: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'96) (1996) pp. 318–322.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    J. Lang and P. Marquis, Complexity results for independence and definability in propositional logic, in: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'98) (1998) pp. 356–367.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    J. Lang, L. van der Torre and E. Weydert, Utilitarian desires, International Journal on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 5 (2002) 329–363.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    P. Liberatore and M. Schaerf, BReLS: a system for the integration of knowledge bases, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2000) (2002) pp. 145–152.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    H. Moulin, Axioms of Cooperative Decision Making (Cambridge University Press, 1988).Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    B. Nebel, Belief revision and default reasoning: syntax-based approaches, in: Proceedings of KR'91 (1991) pp. 417–428.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    B. Nebel, Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems (Kluwer Academic, 1998) Chapter “How hard is it to revise a knowledge base?”.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    N. Nisan, Bidding and allocations in combinatorial auctions, in: ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC-2000) (2000).Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    C.H. Papadimitriou, Computational Complexity (Addison-Wesley, 1994).Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    J. Pearl, System Z: a natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications for default reasoning, in: Proceedings of Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, ed. M. Vardi, San Mateo (1990) pp. 121–135.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    T. Sandholm, An algorithm for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions, in: Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'99) (1999) pp. 542–547.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    T. Schiex, H. Fargier and G. Verfaillie, Valued constraints satisfaction problems: hard and easy problems, in: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'95) (1995) pp. 631–637.Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    Y. Shoham, Reasoning about Change-Time and Causation from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence (MIT Press, 1988).Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    S. Tan and J. Pearl, Specification and evaluation of preferences for planning under uncertainty, in: Proceedings of KR-94 (1994).Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    R. Thomason, Desires and defaults: a framework for planning with inferred goals, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2000) (2000) pp. 702–713.Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    L. van der Torre and E. Weydert, Parameters for utilitarian desires in a qualitative decision theory, Applied Intelligence 14(3) (2001) 285–302.Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    M. Wooldridge and S. Parsons, Languages for negociation, in: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI2000) (2000) pp. 393–397.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jérôme Lang
    • 1
  1. 1.IRITUniversité Paul SabatierToulouse CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations