Set and multiset variables in constraint programming have typically been represented using subset bounds. However, this is a weak representation that neglects potentially useful information about a set such as its cardinality. For set variables, the length-lex (LL) representation successfully provides information about the length (cardinality) and position in the lexicographic ordering. For multiset variables, where elements can be repeated, we consider richer representations that take into account additional information. We study eight different representations in which we maintain bounds according to one of the eight different orderings: length-(co)lex (LL/LC), variety-(co)lex (VL/VC), length-variety-(co)lex (LVL/LVC), and variety-length-(co)lex (VLL/VLC) orderings. These representations integrate together information about the cardinality, variety (number of distinct elements in the multiset), and position in some total ordering. Theoretical and empirical comparisons of expressiveness and compactness of the eight representations suggest that length-variety-(co)lex (LVL/LVC) and variety-length-(co)lex (VLL/VLC) usually give tighter bounds after constraint propagation. We implement the eight representations and evaluate them against the subset bounds representation with cardinality and variety reasoning. Results demonstrate that they offer significantly better pruning and runtime.

We consider manipulation problems when the manipulator only has partial information about the votes of the nonmanipulators. Such partial information is described by an information set, which is the set of profiles of the nonmanipulators that are indistinguishable to the manipulator. Given such an information set, a dominating manipulation is a non-truthful vote that the manipulator can cast which makes the winner at least as preferable (and sometimes more preferable) as the winner when the manipulator votes truthfully. When the manipulator has full information, computing whether or not there exists a dominating manipulation is in P for many common voting rules (by known results). We show that when the manipulator has no information, there is no dominating manipulation for many common voting rules. When the manipulator's information is represented by partial orders and only a small portion of the preferences are unknown, computing a dominating manipulation is NP-hard for many common voting rules. Our results thus throw light on whether we can prevent strategic behavior by limiting information about the votes of other voters.

Nanson's and Baldwin's voting rules select a winner by successively eliminating candidates with low Borda scores. We show that these rules have a number of desirable computational properties. In particular, with unweighted votes, it is NP-hard to manipulate either rule with one manipulator, whilst with weighted votes, it is NP-hard to manipulate either rule with a small number of candidates and a coalition of manipulators. As only a couple of other voting rules are known to be NP-hard to manipulate with a single manipulator, Nanson's and Baldwin's rules appear to be particularly resistant to manipulation from a theoretical perspective. We also propose a number of approximation methods for manipulating these two rules. Experiments demonstrate that both rules are often difficult to manipulate in practice. These results suggest that elimination style voting rules deserve further study.

We propose an online form of the cake cutting problem. This models situations where agents arrive and depart during the process of dividing a resource. We show that well known fair division procedures like cut-and-choose and the Dubins-Spanier moving knife procedure can be adapted to apply to such online problems. We propose some fairness properties that online cake cutting procedures can possess like online forms of proportionality and envy-freeness. We also consider the impact of collusion between agents. Finally, we study theoretically and empirically the competitive ratio of these online cake cutting procedures. Based on its resistance to collusion, and its good performance in practice, our results favour the online version of the cut-and-choose procedure over the online version of the moving knife procedure.

The ignoring delete lists relaxation is of paramount importance for both satisficing and optimal planning. In earlier work, it was observed that the optimal relaxation heuristic h+ has amazing qualities in many classical planning benchmarks, in particular pertaining to the complete absence of local minima. The proofs of this are hand-made, raising the question whether such proofs can be lead automatically by domain analysis techniques. In contrast to earlier disappointing results -- the analysis method has exponential runtime and succeeds only in two extremely simple benchmark domains -- we herein answer this question in the affirmative. We establish connections between causal graph structure and h+ topology. This results in low-order polynomial time analysis methods, implemented in a tool we call TorchLight. Of the 12 domains where the absence of local minima has been proved, TorchLight gives strong success guarantees in 8 domains. Empirically, its analysis exhibits strong performance in a further 2 of these domains, plus in 4 more domains where local minima may exist but are rare. In this way, TorchLight can distinguish ``easy'' domains from ``hard'' ones. By summarizing structural reasons for analysis failure, TorchLight also provides diagnostic output indicating domain aspects that may cause local minima.

In many combinatorial problems one may need to model the diversity or similarity of assignments in a solution. For example, one may wish to maximise or minimise the number of distinct values in a solution. To formulate problems of this type, we can use soft variants of the well known AllDifferent and AllEqual constraints. We present a taxonomy of six soft global constraints, generated by combining the two latter ones and the two standard cost functions, which are either maximised or minimised. We characterise the complexity of achieving arc and bounds consistency on these constraints, resolving those cases for which NP-hardness was neither proven nor disproven. In particular, we explore in depth the constraint ensuring that at least k pairs of variables have a common value. We show that achieving arc consistency is NP-hard, however achieving bounds consistency can be done in polynomial time through dynamic programming. Moreover, we show that the maximum number of pairs of equal variables can be approximated by a factor 1/2 with a linear time greedy algorithm. Finally, we provide a fixed parameter tractable algorithm with respect to the number of values appearing in more than two distinct domains. Interestingly, this taxonomy shows that enforcing equality is harder than enforcing difference.

We prove that it is NP-hard for a coalition of two manipulators to compute how to manipulate the Borda voting rule. This resolves one of the last open problems in the computational complexity of manipulating common voting rules. Because of this NP-hardness, we treat computing a manipulation as an approximation problem where we try to minimize the number of manipulators. Based on ideas from bin packing and multiprocessor scheduling, we propose two new approximation methods to compute manipulations of the Borda rule. Experiments show that these methods significantly outperform the previous best known %existing approximation method. We are able to find optimal manipulations in almost all the randomly generated elections tested. Our results suggest that, whilst computing a manipulation of the Borda rule by a coalition is NP-hard, computational complexity may provide only a weak barrier against manipulation in practice.

It has been also demonstrated that emotional In its basic underpinning assumptions, cognitive load states (e.g., negative mood or anxiety) directly influence theory relies on the analogy between the information cognitive task performance and the operation of working processing aspects of evolution by natural selection and memory, while less evidence exists about the effect of the human cognition (Sweller & Sweller, 2006). It considers emotional content of the processed information (e.g., both biological evolution and human cognition as Kensinger & Corkin, 2003).

We present the first effective SAT heuristics for planning with expressive planning languages such as ADL. Recently, SAT heuristics for STRIPS planning have been introduced. In this work we show that the basic ideas in the heuristic can be generalized to actions with conditional effects but without disjunction, and that disjunction requires a more fundamental analysis of the STRIPS heuristic, which, despite complications, will still lead to a natural heuristic which can be implemented efficiently. The experimental analysis shows substantial and systematic improvements over the state of the art in planning with SAT with ADL.

Logic programming has developed as a rich field, built over a logical substratum whose main constituent is a nonclassical form of negation, sometimes coexisting with classical negation. The field has seen the advent of a number of alternative semantics, with Kripke-Kleene semantics, the well-founded semantics, the stable model semantics, and the answer-set semantics standing out as the most successful. We show that all aforementioned semantics are particular cases of a generic semantics, in a framework where classical negation is the unique form of negation and where the literals in the bodies of the rules can be `marked' to indicate that they can be the targets of hypotheses. A particular semantics then amounts to choosing a particular marking scheme and choosing a particular set of hypotheses. When a literal belongs to the chosen set of hypotheses, all marked occurrences of that literal in the body of a rule are assumed to be true, whereas the occurrences of that literal that have not been marked in the body of the rule are to be derived in order to contribute to the firing of the rule. Hence the notion of hypothetical reasoning that is presented in this framework is not based on making global assumptions, but more subtly on making local, contextual assumptions, taking effect as indicated by the chosen marking scheme on the basis of the chosen set of hypotheses. Our approach offers a unified view on the various semantics proposed in logic programming, classical in that only classical negation is used, and links the semantics of logic programs to mechanisms that endow rule-based systems with the power to harness hypothetical reasoning.