Selecting judgment aggregation rules for NAO robots: an experimental approach

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 ▲]

Judgment aggregation rules based on minimization.

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 ▲]

Distance-based Judgment Aggregation of Three-valued Judgments with Weights

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

Group Intentions are Social Choice with Commitment

in Proceedings 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 ▲]

A complete conclusion-based procedure for judgment aggregation

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 ▲]

Desirable Tie-breaking Rules in Collective Decision Making

in Annales du LAMSADE (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 ▲]