Paper detail

Elicitation for Preferences Single Peaked on Trees

In multiagent systems, we often have a set of agents each of which have a preference ordering over a set of items and one would like to know these preference orderings for various tasks, for example, data analysis, preference aggregation, voting etc. However, we often have a large number of items which makes it impractical to ask the agents for their complete preference ordering. In such scenarios, we usually elicit these agents' preferences by asking (a hopefully small number of) comparison queries --- asking an agent to compare two items. Prior works on preference elicitation focus on unrestricted domain and the domain of single peaked preferences and show that the preferences in single peaked domain can be elicited by much less number of queries compared to unrestricted domain. We extend this line of research and study preference elicitation for single peaked preferences on trees which is a strict superset of the domain of single peaked preferences. We show that the query complexity crucially depends on the number of leaves, the path cover number, and the distance from path of the underlying single peaked tree, whereas the other natural parameters like maximum degree, diameter, pathwidth do not play any direct role in determining query complexity. We then investigate the query complexity for finding a weak Condorcet winner for preferences single peaked on a tree and show that this task has much less query complexity than preference elicitation. Here again we observe that the number of leaves in the underlying single peaked tree and the path cover number of the tree influence the query complexity of the problem.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors5 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.