A Social Choice Theoretic Perspective on Database Aggregation

Abstract : Aggregating information coming from multiple sources is a longstanding problem in both knowledge representation and multiagent systems (see, e.g., [28]). Depending on the chosen representation for the incoming pieces of knowledge or information, a number of competing approaches has seen the light in these literatures. Belief merging [21-23] studies the problem of aggregating propositional formulas coming from different agents into a set of models, subject to some integrity constraint. Judgment and binary aggregation [11, 12, 17] asks individual agents to report yes/no opinions on a set of logically-related binary issues - the agenda - in order to take a collective decision. Social welfare functions, the cornerstone problem in social choice theory (see, e.g., [2]), can also be viewed as mechanisms to merge conflicting information, namely the individual preferences of voters expressed in the form of linear orders over a set of alternatives. Other examples include graph aggregation [13], multi-agent argumentation [6-8], ontology merging [26], and clustering aggregation [15].
Complete list of metadatas

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02377498
Contributor : Frédéric Davesne <>
Submitted on : Saturday, November 23, 2019 - 6:42:41 PM
Last modification on : Friday, January 10, 2020 - 9:09:26 PM

Identifiers

  • HAL Id : hal-02377498, version 1

Citation

Francesco Belardinelli, Umberto Grandi. A Social Choice Theoretic Perspective on Database Aggregation. 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS 2019), May 2019, Montreal QC, Canada. pp.1817--1819. ⟨hal-02377498⟩

Share

Metrics

Record views

99