Aggregating Credences into Beliefs: Agenda Conditions for Impossibility Results
نویسندگان
چکیده
Binarizing belief aggregation addresses how to rationally aggregate individual probabilistic beliefs into collective binary beliefs. Similar the development of judgment theory, formulating axiomatic requirements, proving impossibility theorems, and identifying exact agenda conditions theorems are natural important research topics in binarizing aggregation. Building on our previous we use an agenda-theoretic approach generalize results determine necessary sufficient level logical interconnection between issues for arise. We demonstrate that (1) path-connectedness even-negatability constitute condition oligarchy result stating satisfying proposition-wise independence deductive closure yields oligarchies under minor conditions; (2) negation-connectedness is triviality obtained by adding anonymity result; (3) blockedness result, which follows completeness consistency Moreover, compare these novel findings with existing characterization binarization.
منابع مشابه
Aggregating Sets of Judgments: Two Impossibility Results Compared1
The “doctrinal paradox” or “discursive dilemma” shows that propositionwise majority voting over the judgments held by multiple individuals on some interconnected propositions can lead to inconsistent collective judgments on these propositions. List and Pettit (2002) have proved that this paradox illustrates a more general impossibility theorem showing that there exists no aggregation procedure ...
متن کاملStronger Impossibility Results for Strategy-Proof Voting with i.i.d. Beliefs
The classic Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem says that every strategy-proof voting rule with at least three possible candidates must be dictatorial. In [McL11], McLennan showed that a similar impossibility result holds even if we consider a weaker notion of strategy-proofness where voters believe that the other voters’ preferences are i.i.d. (independent and identically distributed): If an anonymo...
متن کاملAggregating Learned Probabilistic Beliefs
We consider the task of aggregating beliefs of sev eral experts. We assume that these beliefs are rep resented as probability distributions. We argue that the evaluation of any aggregation technique depends on the semantic context of this task. We propose a framework, in which we assume that nature generates samples from a 'true' distribution and different experts form their beliefs based on ...
متن کاملAggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result
The concern of this paper is the aggregation of sets of rationally connected judgments that the members of a group individually endorse into a corresponding, collectively endorsed set of judgments. After documenting the need for various groups to aggregate judgments, we explain how this task is challenged by the "doctrinal" or "discursive" paradox. We then show that this paradox is not just an ...
متن کاملRepresenting and Aggregating Conflicting Beliefs
We consider the two-fold problem of representing collective beliefs and aggregating these beliefs. We propose modular, transitive relations for collective beliefs. They allow us to represent conflicting opinions and they have a clear semantics. We compare them with the quasi-transitive relations often used in social choice. Then, we describe a way to construct the belief state of an agent infor...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Electronic proceedings in theoretical computer science
سال: 2023
ISSN: ['2075-2180']
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4204/eptcs.379.39