We consider problems where several individuals each need to make a yes/no choice regarding a number of issues and these choices then need to be aggregated into a collective choice. Depending on the application at hand, different combinations of yes/no may be considered rational. We can describe such rationality assumptions in terms of a propositional formula. The question then arises whether or not a given aggregation procedure will lift the rationality assumptions from the individual to the collective level, i.e., whether the collective choice will be rational whenever all individual choices are. To address this question, for each of a number of simple fragments of the language of propositional logic, we provide an axiomatic characterisation of the class of aggregation procedures that will lift all rationality assumptions expressible in that fragment.

We explore the relationship between two approaches to rationalizing voting rules: the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) framework originally suggested by Condorcet and recently studied by Conitzer, Rognlie, and Xia, and the distance rationalizability (DR) framework of Elkind, Faliszewski, and Slinko. The former views voting as an attempt to reconstruct the correct ordering of the candidates given noisy estimates (i.e., votes), while the latter explains voting as search for the nearest consensus outcome. We provide conditions under which an MLE interpretation of a voting rule coincides with its DR interpretation, and classify a number of classic voting rules, such as Kemeny, Plurality, Borda and Single Transferable Vote (STV), according to how well they fit each of these frameworks. The classification we obtain is more precise than the ones that result from using MLE or DR alone: indeed, we show that the MLE approach can be used to guide our search for a more refined notion of distance rationalizability and vice versa.

We consider the problem of manipulating elections via cloning candidates. In our model, a manipulator can replace each candidate c by one or more clones, i.e., new candidates that are so similar to  c  that each voter simply replaces  c  in his vote with the block of  c 's clones. The outcome of the resulting election may then depend on how each voter orders the clones within the block. We formalize what it means for a cloning manipulation to be successful (which turns out to be a surprisingly delicate issue), and, for a number of prominent voting rules, characterize the preference profiles for which a successful cloning manipulation exists. We also consider the model where there is a cost associated with producing each clone, and study the complexity of finding a minimum-cost cloning manipulation. Finally, we compare cloning with the related problem of control via adding candidates.

In some voting situations, some new candidates may show up in the course of the process. In this case, we may want to determine which of the initial candidates are possible winners, given that a fixed number k of new candidates will be added. Focusing on scoring rules, we give complexity results for the above possible winner problem.

Cake cutting is a common metaphor for the division of a heterogeneous divisible good. There are numerous papers that study the problem of fairly dividing a cake; a small number of them also take into account self-interested agents and consequent strategic issues, but these papers focus on fairness and consider a strikingly weak notion of truthfulness. In this paper we investigate the problem of cutting a cake in a way that is truthful and fair, where for the first time our notion of dominant strategy truthfulness is the ubiquitous one in social choice and computer science. We design both deterministic and randomized cake cutting algorithms that are truthful and fair under different assumptions with respect to the valuation functions of the agents.

We develop an efficient algorithm for computing pure strategy Nash equilibria that satisfy various criteria (such as the utilitarian or Nash-Bernoulli social welfare functions) in games with sparse interaction structure. Our algorithm, called Valued Nash Propagation (VNP), integrates the optimisation problem of maximising a criterion with the constraint satisfaction problem of finding a game's equilibria to construct a criterion that defines a c -semiring. Given a suitably compact game structure, this criterion can be efficiently optimised using message-passing. To this end, we first show that VNP is complete in games whose interaction structure forms a hypertree. Then, we go on to provide theoretic and empirical results justifying its use on games with arbitrary structure; in particular, we show that it computes the optimum >82% of the time and otherwise selects an equilibrium that is always within 2% of the optimum on average.

In cooperative multiagent systems an alternative that maximizes the social welfare — the sum of utilities — can only be selected if each agent reports its full utility function. This may be infeasible in environments where communication is restricted. Employing a voting rule to choose an alternative greatly reduces the communication burden, but leads to a possible gap between the social welfare of the optimal alternative and the social welfare of the one that is ultimately elected. Procaccia and Rosenschein have introduced the concept of distortion to quantify this gap. In this paper, we present the notion of embeddings into voting rules: functions that receive an agent's utility function and return the agent's vote. We establish that very low distortion can be obtained using randomized embeddings, especially when the number of agents is large compared to the number of alternatives. We investigate our ideas in the context of three prominent voting rules with low communication costs: Plurality, Approval, and Veto. Our results arguably provide a compelling reason for employing voting in cooperative multiagent systems.

We consider approval voting elections in which each voter votes for a (possibly empty) set of candidates and the outcome consists of a set of k candidates for some parameter k, e.g., committee elections. We are interested in the minimax approval voting rule in which the outcome represents a compromise among the voters, in the sense that the maximum distance between the preference of any voter and the outcome is as small as possible. This voting rule has two main drawbacks. First, computing an outcome that minimizes the maximum distance is computationally hard. Furthermore, any algorithm that always returns such an outcome provides incentives to voters to misreport their true preferences. In order to circumvent these drawbacks, we consider approximation algorithms, i.e., algorithms that produce an outcome that approximates the minimax distance for any given instance. Such algorithms can be considered as alternative voting rules. We present a polynomial-time 2-approximation algorithm that uses a natural linear programming relaxation for the underlying optimization problem and deterministically rounds the fractional solution in order to compute the outcome; this result improves upon the previously best known algorithm that has an approximation ratio of 3. We are furthermore interested in approximation algorithms that are resistant to manipulation by (coalitions of) voters, i.e., algorithms that do not motivate voters to misreport their true preferences in order to improve their distance from the outcome. We complement previous results in the literature with new upper and lower bounds on strategyproof and group-strategyproof algorithms.

This paper presents a technique for approximating, up to any precision, the set of subgame-perfect equilibria (SPE) in repeated games with discounting. The process starts with a single hypercube approximation of the set of SPE payoff profiles. Then the initial hypercube is gradually partitioned on to a set of smaller adjacent hypercubes, while those hypercubes that cannot contain any SPE point are gradually withdrawn. Whether a given hypercube can contain an equilibrium point is verified by an appropriate mixed integer program. A special attention is paid to the question of extracting players' strategies and their representability in form of finite automata.

For many election systems, bribery (and related) attacks have been shown NP-hard using constructions on combinatorially rich structures such as partitions and covers. It is important to learn how robust these hardness protection results are, in order to find whether they can be relied on in practice. This paper shows that for voters who follow the most central political-science model of electorates — single-peaked preferences — those protections vanish. By using single-peaked preferences to simplify combinatorial covering challenges, we show that NP-hard bribery problems — including those for Kemeny and Llull elections- — fall to polynomial time. By using single-peaked preferences to simplify combinatorial partition challenges, we show that NP-hard partition-of-voters problems fall to polynomial time. We furthermore show that for single-peaked electorates, the winner problems for Dodgson and Kemeny elections, though Θ 2 p -complete in the general case, fall to polynomial time. And we completely classify the complexity of weighted coalition manipulation for scoring protocols in single-peaked electorates.