We provide a comprehensive analysis of the computational complexity of the outcome determination problem for the most important aggregation rules proposed in the literature on logic-based judgment aggregation. Judgment aggregation is a powerful and flexible framework for studying problems of collective decision making that has attracted interest in a range of disciplines, including Legal Theory, Philosophy, Economics, Political Science, and Artificial Intelligence. The problem of computing the outcome for a given list of individual judgments to be aggregated into a single collective judgment is the most fundamental algorithmic challenge arising in this context. Our analysis applies to several different variants of the basic framework of judgment aggregation that have been discussed in the literature, as well as to a new framework that encompasses all existing such frameworks in terms of expressive power and representational succinctness.

Fair division is the problem of dividing one or several goods amongst two or more agents in a way that satisfies a suitable fairness criterion. These Notes provide a succinct introduction to the field. We cover three main topics. First, we need to define what is to be understood by a "fair" allocation of goods to individuals. We present an overview of the most important fairness criteria (as well as the closely related criteria for economic efficiency) developed in the literature, together with a short discussion of their axiomatic foundations. Second, we give an introduction to cake-cutting procedures as an example of methods for fairly dividing a single divisible resource amongst a group of individuals. Third, we discuss the combinatorial optimisation problem of fairly allocating a set of indivisible goods to a group of agents, covering both centralised algorithms (similar to auctions) and a distributed approach based on negotiation. While the classical literature on fair division has largely developed within Economics, these Notes are specifically written for readers with a background in Computer Science or similar, and who may be (or may wish to be) engaged in research in Artificial Intelligence, Multiagent Systems, or Computational Social Choice. References for further reading, as well as a small number of exercises, are included. Notes prepared for a tutorial at the 11th European Agent Systems Summer School (EASSS-2009), Torino, Italy, 31 August and 1 September 2009. Updated for a tutorial at the COST-ADT Doctoral School on Computational Social Choice, Estoril, Portugal, 9--14 April 2010.

We introduce tool auctions, a novel market mechanism for constructing a cost-efficient assembly line for producing a desired set of products from a given set of goods and tools. Such tools can be used to transform one type of good into a different one. We then study the computational complexity of tool auctions in detail, using methods from both classical and parameterized complexity theory. While solving such auctions is intractable in general, just as for the related frameworks of combinatorial and mixed auctions, we are able to identify several special cases of practical interest where designing efficient algorithms is possible.

We introduce a formal model of iterative judgment aggregation, enabling the analysis of scenarios in which agents repeatedly update their individual positions on a set of issues, before a final decision is made by applying an aggregation rule to these individual positions. Focusing on two popular aggregation rules, the premise-based rule and the plurality rule, we study under what circumstances convergence to an equilibrium can be guaranteed. We also analyse the quality, in social terms, of the final decisions obtained. Our results not only shed light on the parameters that determine whether iteration converges and is socially beneficial, but they also clarify important differences between iterative judgment aggregation and the related framework of iterative voting.

Different agents may have different points of view. Following a popular approach in the artificial intelligence literature, this can be modelled by means of different abstract argumentation frameworks, each consisting of a set of arguments the agent is contemplating and a binary attack-relation between them. A question arising in this context is whether the diversity of views observed in such a profile of argumentation frameworks is consistent with the assumption that every individual argumentation framework is induced by a combination of, first, some basic factual attack-relation between the arguments and, second, the personal preferences of the agent concerned regarding the moral or social values the arguments under scrutiny relate to. We treat this question of rationalisability of a profile as an algorithmic problem and identify tractable and intractable cases. In doing so, we distinguish different constraints on admissible rationalisations, e.g., concerning the types of preferences used or the number of distinct values involved. We also distinguish two different semantics for rationalisability, which differ in the assumptions made on how agents treat attacks between arguments they do not report. This research agenda, bringing together ideas from abstract argumentation and social choice, is useful for understanding what types of profiles can reasonably be expected to occur in a multiagent system.

Graph aggregation is the process of computing a single output graph that constitutes a good compromise between several input graphs, each provided by a different source. One needs to perform graph aggregation in a wide variety of situations, e.g., when applying a voting rule (graphs as preference orders), when consolidating conflicting views regarding the relationships between arguments in a debate (graphs as abstract argumentation frameworks), or when computing a consensus between several alternative clusterings of a given dataset (graphs as equivalence relations). In this paper, we introduce a formal framework for graph aggregation grounded in social choice theory. Our focus is on understanding which properties shared by the individual input graphs will transfer to the output graph returned by a given aggregation rule. We consider both common properties of graphs, such as transitivity and reflexivity, and arbitrary properties expressible in certain fragments of modal logic. Our results establish several connections between the types of properties preserved under aggregation and the choice-theoretic axioms satisfied by the rules used. The most important of these results is a powerful impossibility theorem that generalises Arrow's seminal result for the aggregation of preference orders to a large collection of different types of graphs.

We introduce a new family of judgment aggregation rules, called the binomial rules, designed to account for hidden dependencies between some of the issues being judged. To place them within the landscape of judgment aggregation rules, we analyse both their axiomatic properties and their computational complexity, and we show that they contain both the well-known distance-based rule and the basic rule returning the most frequent overall judgment as special cases. To evaluate the performance of our rules empirically, we apply them to a dataset of crowdsourced judgments regarding the quality of hotels extracted from the travel website TripAdvisor. In our experiments we distinguish between the full dataset and a subset of highly polarised judgments, and we develop a new notion of polarisation for profiles of judgments for this purpose, which may also be of independent interest.

Examples range from multiagent planning, That is, we look for the most representative voter and return to crowdsourcing and human computation, to collaborative her ballot as the outcome. In our example, a natural choice filtering for recommender systems, to rank aggregation would be any of the voters voting (0, 1, 1). The distance of for search engines, to coordination and resource allocation this choice to the individual ballots is 42 (21 voters disagree in multiagent systems. Several frameworks have been on 2 issues each), i.e., this solution is only marginally worse proposed in the literature on computational social choice than the solution returned by the distance-based rule--and it (Chevaleyre et al. 2007; Brandt, Conitzer, and Endriss 2013) is optimal in case (1, 1, 1) is infeasible.

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 show that linear logic can serve as an expressive framework in which to model a rich variety of combinatorial auction mechanisms. Due to its resource-sensitive nature, linear logic can easily represent bids in combinatorial auctions in which goods may be sold in multiple units, and we show how it naturally generalises several bidding languages familiar from the literature. Moreover, the winner determination problem, i.e., the problem of computing an allocation of goods to bidders producing a certain amount of revenue for the auctioneer, can be modelled as the problem of finding a proof for a particular linear logic sequent.