References of "Slavkovik, Marija 40000640"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
See detailJudgement aggregation for multiagent systems
Slavkovik, Marija UL

Doctoral thesis (2012)

Detailed reference viewed: 69 (7 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailSelecting judgment aggregation rules for NAO robots: an experimental approach
Garcia Becerro, Frederic UL; Sousa, Sergio; Slavkovik, Marija UL et al

in Selecting judgment aggregation rules for NAO robots: an experimental approach (2012)

Social choice rules can be used to reach group decisions in multiagent systems. We consider judgment aggregation, the problem of aggregating answers to binary logically related questions. In general ... [more ▼]

Social choice rules can be used to reach group decisions in multiagent systems. We consider judgment aggregation, the problem of aggregating answers to binary logically related questions. In general "fairness" is usually considered to be the main concern when selecting a social choice rule, however we believe that in judgment aggregation often a more relevant property is how efficient the rule is in truth tracking, that is, how often does it return the correct answer to the binary questions. Whereas "fairness" can be studied axiomatically, truth tracking efficiency needs to be studied experimentally. We accomplish the experimental analysis by constructing a multi-robot system. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 38 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailDistance-Based Rules for Weighted Judgment Aggregation (Extended Abstract)
Slavkovik, Marija UL; Jamroga, Wojciech UL

in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS2012 (2012)

Detailed reference viewed: 25 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailJudgment aggregation rules based on minimization.
Lang, J. UL; Pigozzi, Gabriella UL; Slavkovik, Marija UL et al

in Actes des Cinquièmes Journées Francophones Modèles Formel de l'Interaction (MFI 11) (2011, July 12), XIII

Many voting rules are based on some minimization principle. Likewise, in the field of logic-based knowledge representation and reasoning, many belief change or inconsistency handling operators also make ... [more ▼]

Many voting rules are based on some minimization principle. Likewise, in the field of logic-based knowledge representation and reasoning, many belief change or inconsistency handling operators also make use of minimization. Surprisingly, minimization has not played a major role in the field of judgment aggregation, in spite of its proximity to voting theory and logic-based knowledge representation and reasoning. Here we make a step in this direction and study six judgment aggregation rules; two of them, based on distances, have been previously defined; the other four are new, and all inspired both by voting theory and knowledge representation and reasoning. We study the inclusion relationships between these rules and address some of their social choice theoretic properties. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 75 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailJudgment Aggregation for Cooperative Anchoring on the NAO Robots
Ganesan, V.; Slavkovik, Marija UL; Sousa, S. et al

in Works-in-progress track - 3rd International Conference on Social Robotics (2011)

Cooperative anchoring is the sharing of associations between symbols and sensor data across multi robot systems. We apply the solution of Judgment Aggregation, a logic based collective-decision making ... [more ▼]

Cooperative anchoring is the sharing of associations between symbols and sensor data across multi robot systems. We apply the solution of Judgment Aggregation, a logic based collective-decision making framework from social choice theory to the problem of cooperative anchoring in terms of information fusion. We model a multi-agent system comprising of nao robots on a search exercise using its vision and audition sensor into this framework and fuse them by means of aggregation rules and compare them on a truth-tracking basis. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 37 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA Satisficing Agreements Model
Boella, Guido UL; Pigozzi, Gabriella UL; Slavkovik, Marija UL et al

in Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms (COIN@WI-IAT) (2011)

Satisficing, the concept proposed by Herbert Simon, as an approach to reaching agreements is little explored. We propose a model for satisficing agreement reaching for an adaptive collaborative group of ... [more ▼]

Satisficing, the concept proposed by Herbert Simon, as an approach to reaching agreements is little explored. We propose a model for satisficing agreement reaching for an adaptive collaborative group of agents. The group consists of one human agent familiar with the problem and arbitrarily many artificial agents. Our model raises to the team level the recognition-primed decision model constructed in the field of cognitive decision-making by using social choice for reaching group opinions. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 57 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailDistance-based Judgment Aggregation of Three-valued Judgments with Weights
Slavkovik, Marija UL; Jamroga, Wojciech UL

in Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Social Choice and Artificial Intelligence (2011)

Detailed reference viewed: 20 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailGroup Intentions are Social Choice with Commitment
Boella, Guido UL; Pigozzi, Gabriella UL; Slavkovik, Marija UL et al

in Pre-Procs. of the 11th International Workshop on Coordination, Optimization, Institution and Norms in Multiagent Systems (COIN@MALLOW'10) (2010)

An agent intends g if it has chosen to pursue goal g an is committed to pursuing g . How do groups decide on a common goal? Social epistemology offers two views on collective attitudes: according to the ... [more ▼]

An agent intends g if it has chosen to pursue goal g an is committed to pursuing g . How do groups decide on a common goal? Social epistemology offers two views on collective attitudes: according to the summative approach, a group has attitude p if all or most of the group members have the attitude p; according to the non-summative approach, for a group to have attitude p it is required that the members together agree that they have attitude p. The summative approach is used extensively in multi-agent systems. We propose a formalization of non-summative group intentions, using social choice to determine the group goals. We use judgment aggregation as a decision-making mechanism and a multi-modal multi-agent logic to represent the collective attitudes, as well as the commitment and revision strategies for the groups intentions. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 32 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA complete conclusion-based procedure for judgment aggregation
Pigozzi, Gabriella UL; Slavkovik, Marija UL; van der Torre, Leon UL

in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Algorithmic Decision Theory (ADT) (2009)

Judgment aggregation is a formal theory reasoning about how a group of agents can aggregate individual judgments on connected propositions into a collective judgment on the same propositions. Three ... [more ▼]

Judgment aggregation is a formal theory reasoning about how a group of agents can aggregate individual judgments on connected propositions into a collective judgment on the same propositions. Three procedures for successfully aggregating judgments sets are: premise-based procedure, conclusion-based procedure and distance-based merging. The conclusion-based procedure has been little investigated because it provides a way to aggregate the conclusions, but not the premises, thus it outputs an incomplete judgment set. The goal of this paper is to present a conclusion-based procedure outputting complete judgment sets. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 55 (0 UL)
Full Text
See detailWhite Manipulation in Judgment Aggregation
Grossi, Davide; Pigozzi, Gabriella UL; Slavkovik, Marija UL

Scientific Conference (2009)

Distributive systems consisting of autonomous and intelligent components need to be able to reason and make decisions based on the information these components share. Judgment aggregation investigates how ... [more ▼]

Distributive systems consisting of autonomous and intelligent components need to be able to reason and make decisions based on the information these components share. Judgment aggregation investigates how individual judgments on logically connected propositions can be aggregated into a collective judgment on the same propositions. It is the case that seemingly reasonable aggregation procedures may force the group to hold an inconsistent judgment set. What happens when the agents realize that the group outcome will be inconsistent? We claim that, in order to avoid an untenable collective outcome, individuals may prefer to declare a non-truthful, less preferred judgment set. Thus, the prospect of an individual trying to manipulate the social outcome by submitting an insincere judgment set is turned from being an undesirable to a “virtuous” (or white) manipulation. We define white manipulation and present the initial study of it as a coordinated action of the whole group. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 58 (1 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailDesirable Tie-breaking Rules in Collective Decision Making
Pigozzi, Gabriella UL; Slavkovik, Marija UL; van der Torre, Leon UL

in Annales du Lamsade, Proceedings of the DIMACS-LAMSADE Workshop on Algorithmic Decision Theory (2008)

Judgment aggregation (JA) studies how to aggregate individual judgments to form collective decisions. Examples are expert panels, legal courts, boards, and councils. The problems investigated in this new ... [more ▼]

Judgment aggregation (JA) studies how to aggregate individual judgments to form collective decisions. Examples are expert panels, legal courts, boards, and councils. The problems investigated in this new field are relevant and common to many situations. Nevertheless, the existing procedures are idealized and, likewise the related problems of preference aggregation in social choice theory, the field is plagued by impossibility theorems. In this paper, we extend standard JA in order to offer a more realistic framework and to escape the impossibility results. We propose to distinguish between abstainers and neutral judgment as well as to model the notion of confidence a group member may have in the decision rule by assigning to each criterion a normalized weight. We then show how this new framework may help us to avoid indecision in most cases. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 56 (0 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailConclusion-based procedure for judgment aggregation satisfying premise independence
Pigozzi, Gabriella UL; Slavkovik, Marija UL; van der Torre, Leon UL

in Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory, LOFT 2008 (2008)

Judgment aggregation is a formal theory reasoning about how a group of agents can aggregate individual judgments on connected propositions into a collective judgment on the same propositions. Three ... [more ▼]

Judgment aggregation is a formal theory reasoning about how a group of agents can aggregate individual judgments on connected propositions into a collective judgment on the same propositions. Three procedures for successfully aggregating judgments sets are: premise-based procedure, conclusion-based procedure and distance-based merging. The conclusion-based procedure has been little investigated because it pro- vides a way to aggregate the conclusions, but not the premises, thus it outputs an incomplete judgment set. The goal of this paper is to present a conclusion-based procedure outputting complete judgment sets. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 29 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailIndependence in judgment aggregation
Pigozzi, Gabriella UL; Slavkovik, Marija UL; van der Torre, Leon UL

in Proceedings of the Ninth International Meeting of the Society for Social Choice and Welfare, SCW'08 (2008)

One of the better studied properties for operators in judgment aggregation is independence, which essentially dictates that the collective judgment on one issue should not depend on the individual ... [more ▼]

One of the better studied properties for operators in judgment aggregation is independence, which essentially dictates that the collective judgment on one issue should not depend on the individual judgments given on some other issue(s) in the same agenda. Independence is a desirable property for various reasons, but unfortunately it is too strong, as, together with mild additional conditions, it implies dictatorship. We propose here a weakening of independence, named agenda separability and show that this property is discriminant, i.e., some judgment aggregation rules satisfy it, others do not. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 29 (1 UL)