text: We consider multi-agent systems where agents' preferences are aggregated via sequential majority voting: each decision is taken by performing a sequence of pairwise comparisons where each comparison is a weighted majority vote among the agents. Incompleteness in the agents' preferences is common in many real-life settings due to privacy issues or an ongoing elicitation process. In addition, there may be uncertainty about how the preferences are aggregated. For example, the agenda (a tree whose leaves are labelled with the decisions being compared) may not yet be known or fixed. We therefore study how to determine collectively optimal decisions (also called winners) when preferences may be incomplete, and when the agenda may be uncertain. We show that it is computationally easy to determine if a candidate decision always wins, or may win, whatever the agenda. On the other hand, it is computationally hard to know wheth er a candidate decision wins in at least one agenda for at least one completion of the agents' preferences. These results hold even if the agenda must be balanced so that each candidate decision faces the same number of majority votes. Such results are useful for reasoning about preference elicitation. They help understand the complexity of tasks such as determining if a decision can be taken collectively, as well as knowing if the winner can be manipulated by appropriately ordering the agenda.
  @cite_2: Social choice rules are often evaluated and compared by inquiring whether they fulfill certain desirable criteria such as the Condorcet criterion, which states that an alternative should always be chosen when more than half of the voters prefer it over any other alternative. Many of these criteria can be formulated in terms of choice sets that single out reasonable alternatives based on the preferences of the voters. In this paper, we consider choice sets whose definition merely relies on the pairwise majority relation. These sets include the Copeland set, the Smith set, the Schwartz set, von Neumann-Morgenstern stable sets (a concept originally introduced in the context of cooperative game theory), the Banks set, and the Slater set. We investigate the relationships between these sets and completely characterize their computational complexity which allows us to obtain hardness results for entire classes of social choice rules. In contrast to most existing work, we do not impose any restrictions on individual preferences, apart from the indifference relation being reflexive and symmetric. This assumption is motivated by the fact that many realistic types of preferences in computational contexts such as incomplete or quasi-transitive preferences may lead to general pairwise majority relations that need not be complete.
summary: Finally, Brandt consider different notions of winners starting from incomplete majority graphs @cite_2 . We plan to investigate these kinds of winners in our framework.