Vote elicitation: Complexity and strategy-proofness

被引:0
|
作者
Conitzer, V [1 ]
Sandholm, R [1 ]
机构
[1] Carnegie Mellon Univ, Dept Comp Sci, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
来源
EIGHTEENTH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AAAI-02)/FOURTEENTH INNOVATIVE APPLICATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CONFERENCE (IAAI-02), PROCEEDINGS | 2002年
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Preference elicitation is a central problem in AI, and has received significant attention in single-agent settings. It is also a key problem in multiagent systems, but has received little attention here so far. In this setting, the agents may have different preferences that often must be aggregated using voting. This leads to interesting issues because what, if any, information should be elicited from an agent depends on what other agents have revealed about their preferences so far. In this paper we study effective elicitation, and its impediments, for the most common voting protocols. It turns out that in the Single Transferable Vote protocol, even knowing when to terminate elicitation is NP-complete, while this is easy for all the other protocols under study. Even for these protocols, determining how to elicit effectively is NP-complete, even with perfect suspicions about how the agents will vote. The exception is the Plurality protocol where such effective elicitation is easy. We also show that elicitation introduces additional opportunities for strategic manipulation by the voters. We demonstrate how to curtail the space of elicitation schemes so that no such additional strategic issues arise.
引用
收藏
页码:392 / 397
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A decomposition of strategy-proofness
    Nozomu Muto
    Shin Sato
    Social Choice and Welfare, 2016, 47 : 277 - 294
  • [2] Strategy-proofness in the Large
    Azevedo, Eduardo M.
    Budish, Eric
    REVIEW OF ECONOMIC STUDIES, 2019, 86 (01): : 81 - 116
  • [3] A decomposition of strategy-proofness
    Muto, Nozomu
    Sato, Shin
    SOCIAL CHOICE AND WELFARE, 2016, 47 (02) : 277 - 294
  • [4] Evaluationwise strategy-proofness
    Erdamar, Bora
    Sanver, M. Remzi
    Sato, Shin
    GAMES AND ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR, 2017, 106 : 227 - 238
  • [5] Strategy-proofness and markets
    Mark A. Satterthwaite
    Social Choice and Welfare, 2001, 18 : 37 - 58
  • [6] Strategy-proofness and markets
    Satterthwaite, MA
    SOCIAL CHOICE AND WELFARE, 2001, 18 (01) : 37 - 58
  • [7] On the equivalence of strategy-proofness and upper contour strategy-proofness for randomized social choice functions
    Roy, Souvik
    Sadhukhan, Soumyarup
    JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL ECONOMICS, 2022, 99
  • [8] Strategy-proofness and weighted voting
    Campbell, Donald E.
    Kelly, Jerry S.
    MATHEMATICAL SOCIAL SCIENCES, 2010, 60 (01) : 15 - 23
  • [9] Strategy-proofness on Euclidean spaces
    W. Peremans
    H. Peters
    H. v. d. Stel
    T. Storcken
    Social Choice and Welfare, 1997, 14 : 379 - 401
  • [10] The strategy-proofness landscape of merging
    Everaere, Patricia
    Konieczny, Sebastien
    Marquis, Pierre
    JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH, 2007, 28 (49-105): : 49 - 105