Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 1-2/2019

19.01.2019

Multi-agent soft constraint aggregation via sequential voting: theoretical and experimental results

verfasst von: Cristina Cornelio, Maria Silvia Pini, Francesca Rossi, Kristen Brent Venable

Erschienen in: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems | Ausgabe 1-2/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We consider scenarios where several agents must aggregate their preferences over a large set of candidates with a combinatorial structure. That is, each candidate is an element of the Cartesian product of the domains of some variables (i.e., features). These scenarios are very common when candidates are described by feature vectors, such as cars, or houses, or any complex product. We assume agents to compactly express their preferences over the candidates via soft constraints. This is a compact way to model preferences which naturally models variables domains, and relationship among variables. To aggregate the preferences of the agents, we consider a sequential procedure that asks the agents to vote on one variable at a time. At each step, all agents express their preferences over the domain of a variable; based on such preferences, a voting rule is used to select one value for that variable. When all variables have been considered, the selected values constitute the returned variable assignment, that is, the elected candidate. We study several properties of this procedure (such as Condorcet consistency, anonymity, neutrality, monotonicity, consistency, efficiency, participation, independence of irrelevant alternatives, non dictatorship, and strategy-proofness), by relating them to corresponding properties of the adopted voting rules used for each variable. Moreover, we perform an experimental study on a special kind of soft constraints, namely fuzzy constraints. The experimental study shows that the proposed sequential procedure yields a considerable saving in time with respect to a non-sequential approach, while the winners satisfy the agents just as well, independently of the variable ordering, and of the presence of coalitions of agents.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
Notice that a soft profile consists of a collection of SCSPs over the same set of variables, while a profile (as in the classical social choice setting) is a collection of total orderings over a set of candidates.
 
2
Notice that the preference values 0 and 1 mentioned here are the preference values 0 and 1 of the preference structure \(S = \langle A, +, \times , 0, 1 \rangle \) of the SCSPs that we consider, i.e., they are the worst and the best preference value that can be associated by a constraint to an assignment of values to variables.
 
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.MATH Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.MATH
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K., & Suzumura, K. (2002). Handbook of social choice and welfare. Amsterdam: North-Holland.MATH Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K., & Suzumura, K. (2002). Handbook of social choice and welfare. Amsterdam: North-Holland.MATH
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Bacchus, F., & Grove, A. (1995). Graphical models for preference and utility. In Proceedings of UAI, 1995, pp. 3–10. Bacchus, F., & Grove, A. (1995). Graphical models for preference and utility. In Proceedings of UAI, 1995, pp. 3–10.
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Bessiere, C. (2005). Constraint propagation. In F. Rossi, P. V. Beek, & T. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of constraint programming. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Bessiere, C. (2005). Constraint propagation. In F. Rossi, P. V. Beek, & T. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of constraint programming. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Boutilier, C., Brafman, R. I., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H. H., & Poole, D. (2004). CP-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. JAIR, 21, 135–191.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Boutilier, C., Brafman, R. I., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H. H., & Poole, D. (2004). CP-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. JAIR, 21, 135–191.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Boutilier, C., Goldszmidt, M., & Sabata, B. (1999). Sequential auctions for the allocation of resources with complementarities. In Proceedings of IJCAI 1999. Boutilier, C., Goldszmidt, M., & Sabata, B. (1999). Sequential auctions for the allocation of resources with complementarities. In Proceedings of IJCAI 1999.
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Brafman, R. I., Rossi, F., Salvagnin, D., Venable, K. B., & Walsh, T. (2010). Finding the next solution in constraint- and preference-based knowledge representation formalisms. In Proceedings of KR 2010. Brafman, R. I., Rossi, F., Salvagnin, D., Venable, K. B., & Walsh, T. (2010). Finding the next solution in constraint- and preference-based knowledge representation formalisms. In Proceedings of KR 2010.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T., & Lang, J. (2007). When are elections with few candidates hard to manipulate. JACM, 54(3), 1–33.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T., & Lang, J. (2007). When are elections with few candidates hard to manipulate. JACM, 54(3), 1–33.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Conitzer, V., & Xia, L. (2012). Paradoxes of multiple elections: An approximation approach. In Proceedings of KR 2012. Conitzer, V., & Xia, L. (2012). Paradoxes of multiple elections: An approximation approach. In Proceedings of KR 2012.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Dechter, R. (2003). Constraint processing. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.MATH Dechter, R. (2003). Constraint processing. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.MATH
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Dechter, R. (2005). Tractable structures for CSPs. In F. Rossi, P. V. Beek, & T. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of constraint programming. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Dechter, R. (2005). Tractable structures for CSPs. In F. Rossi, P. V. Beek, & T. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of constraint programming. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
12.
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Gonzales, C., Perny, P., & Queiroz, S. (2008). Preference aggregation with graphical utility models. In Proceedings of AAAI, 2008, pp. 1037–1042. Gonzales, C., Perny, P., & Queiroz, S. (2008). Preference aggregation with graphical utility models. In Proceedings of AAAI, 2008, pp. 1037–1042.
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Kelly, J. S. (1978). Arrow impossibility theorems. New York: Academic Press.MATH Kelly, J. S. (1978). Arrow impossibility theorems. New York: Academic Press.MATH
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Lang, J., Mengin, J., & Xia, L. (2012). Aggregating conditionally lexicographic preferences on multi-issue domains. In Proceedings of CP, 2012, pp. 973–987. Lang, J., Mengin, J., & Xia, L. (2012). Aggregating conditionally lexicographic preferences on multi-issue domains. In Proceedings of CP, 2012, pp. 973–987.
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Lang, J., & Xia, L. (2009). Sequential composition of voting rules in multi-issue domains. Mathematical Social Sciences, 57, 304–324.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Lang, J., & Xia, L. (2009). Sequential composition of voting rules in multi-issue domains. Mathematical Social Sciences, 57, 304–324.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Liu, X., & Truszczynski, M. (2013). Aggregating conditionally lexicographic preferences using answer set programming solvers. In Proceedings of international conference on algorithmic decision theory (ADT-13). Liu, X., & Truszczynski, M. (2013). Aggregating conditionally lexicographic preferences using answer set programming solvers. In Proceedings of international conference on algorithmic decision theory (ADT-13).
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Maran, A., Maudet, N., Pini, M.S., Rossi, F., & Venable, K.B. (2013). A framework for aggregating influenced CP-nets and its resistance to bribery. In Proceedings of AAAI 2013. Maran, A., Maudet, N., Pini, M.S., Rossi, F., & Venable, K.B. (2013). A framework for aggregating influenced CP-nets and its resistance to bribery. In Proceedings of AAAI 2013.
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Mattei, N., Pini, M. S., Venable, K. B., & Rossi, F. (2012). Bribery in voting over combinatorial domains is easy. In Proceedings of AAMAS, 2012, pp. 1407–1408. Mattei, N., Pini, M. S., Venable, K. B., & Rossi, F. (2012). Bribery in voting over combinatorial domains is easy. In Proceedings of AAMAS, 2012, pp. 1407–1408.
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Mattei, N., Pini, M. S., Venable, K. B., & Rossi, F. (2013). Bribery in voting with CP-nets. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence., 68, 135–160.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Mattei, N., Pini, M. S., Venable, K. B., & Rossi, F. (2013). Bribery in voting with CP-nets. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence., 68, 135–160.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Mattei, N., & Walsh, T. (2013). Preflib: A library of preference data. In Proceedings of ADT 2013. Springer Mattei, N., & Walsh, T. (2013). Preflib: A library of preference data. In Proceedings of ADT 2013. Springer
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Maudet, N., Pini, M. S., Venable, K. B., & Rossi, F. (2012). Influence and aggregation of preferences over combinatorial domains. In Proceedings of AAMAS 2012, pp. 1313–1314. Maudet, N., Pini, M. S., Venable, K. B., & Rossi, F. (2012). Influence and aggregation of preferences over combinatorial domains. In Proceedings of AAMAS 2012, pp. 1313–1314.
24.
Zurück zum Zitat May, K. (1952). A set of independent, necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision. Econometrica, 20, 680–684.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH May, K. (1952). A set of independent, necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision. Econometrica, 20, 680–684.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Meseguer, P., Rossi, F., & Schiex, T. (2005). Soft constraints. In F. Rossi, P. V. Beek, & T. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of constraint programming. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Meseguer, P., Rossi, F., & Schiex, T. (2005). Soft constraints. In F. Rossi, P. V. Beek, & T. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of constraint programming. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Mittal, S., & Frayman, F. (1989). Toward a generic model of configuration tasks. In Proceedings of IJCAI 1989, pp. 1395–1401. Mittal, S., & Frayman, F. (1989). Toward a generic model of configuration tasks. In Proceedings of IJCAI 1989, pp. 1395–1401.
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Pini, M. S., Rossi, F., & Venable, K. B. (2013). Bribery in voting with soft constraints. In Proceedings of AAAI 2013. Pini, M. S., Rossi, F., & Venable, K. B. (2013). Bribery in voting with soft constraints. In Proceedings of AAAI 2013.
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Pini, M. S., Rossi, F., & Venable, K. B. (2013). Resistance to bribery when aggregating soft constraints. In Proceedings of AAMAS, 2013, pp. 1301–1302. Pini, M. S., Rossi, F., & Venable, K. B. (2013). Resistance to bribery when aggregating soft constraints. In Proceedings of AAMAS, 2013, pp. 1301–1302.
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Pozza, G. D., Pini, M. S., Rossi, F., & Venable, K. B. (2011). Multi-agent soft constraint aggregation via sequential voting. In Proceedings of IJCAI, 2011, pp. 172–177. Pozza, G. D., Pini, M. S., Rossi, F., & Venable, K. B. (2011). Multi-agent soft constraint aggregation via sequential voting. In Proceedings of IJCAI, 2011, pp. 172–177.
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Pozza, G. D., Rossi, F., & Venable, B. (2011). Multi-agent soft constraint aggregation: A sequential approach. In Proceedings of ICAART, 2011, pp. 277–282. Pozza, G. D., Rossi, F., & Venable, B. (2011). Multi-agent soft constraint aggregation: A sequential approach. In Proceedings of ICAART, 2011, pp. 277–282.
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Purrington, K., & Durfee, E. H. (2007). Making social choices from individuals’ CP-nets. In Proceedings of AAMAS, 2007, pp. 1122–1124. Purrington, K., & Durfee, E. H. (2007). Making social choices from individuals’ CP-nets. In Proceedings of AAMAS, 2007, pp. 1122–1124.
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Satterthwaite, M. (1975). Strategy-proofness and Arrow’s conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Economic Theory, 10, 187–217.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Satterthwaite, M. (1975). Strategy-proofness and Arrow’s conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Economic Theory, 10, 187–217.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Schiex, T. (1992). Possibilistic constraint satisfaction problems or “how to handle soft constraints?” In Proceedings of UAI, 1992, pp. 268–275. Schiex, T. (1992). Possibilistic constraint satisfaction problems or “how to handle soft constraints?” In Proceedings of UAI, 1992, pp. 268–275.
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Taylor, A. (2005). Social choice and the mathematics of manipulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefMATH Taylor, A. (2005). Social choice and the mathematics of manipulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefMATH
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Xia, L., & Conitzer, V. (2010). Strategy-proof voting rules over multi-issue domains with restricted preferences. In Proceedings of WINE, 2010, pp. 402–414. Xia, L., & Conitzer, V. (2010). Strategy-proof voting rules over multi-issue domains with restricted preferences. In Proceedings of WINE, 2010, pp. 402–414.
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Xia, L., Conitzer, V., & Lang, J. (2008). Voting on multiattribute domains with cyclic preferential dependencies. In Proceedings of AAAI, 2008, pp. 202–207. Xia, L., Conitzer, V., & Lang, J. (2008). Voting on multiattribute domains with cyclic preferential dependencies. In Proceedings of AAAI, 2008, pp. 202–207.
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Xia, L., Conitzer, V., & Lang, J. (2010). Aggregating preferences in multi-issue domains by using maximum likelihood estimators. In Proceedings of AAMAS, 2010, pp. 399–408. Xia, L., Conitzer, V., & Lang, J. (2010). Aggregating preferences in multi-issue domains by using maximum likelihood estimators. In Proceedings of AAMAS, 2010, pp. 399–408.
Metadaten
Titel
Multi-agent soft constraint aggregation via sequential voting: theoretical and experimental results
verfasst von
Cristina Cornelio
Maria Silvia Pini
Francesca Rossi
Kristen Brent Venable
Publikationsdatum
19.01.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems / Ausgabe 1-2/2019
Print ISSN: 1387-2532
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7454
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-018-09400-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1-2/2019

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 1-2/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Premium Partner