Judgment Aggregation
نویسندگان
چکیده
Judgment aggregation theory generalizes social choice theory by having the aggregation rule bear on judgments of all kinds instead of barely judgments of preference. The paper briefly sums it up, privileging the variant that formalizes judgment by a logical syntax. The theory derives from Kornhauser and Sager’s doctrinal paradox and Pettit’s discursive dilemma, which List and Pettit turned into an impossibility theorem the first of a long list to come. After mentioning this stage, the paper restates three theorems that are representative of the current work, by Nehring and Puppe, Dokow and Holzman, and Dietrich and Mongin, respectively, and it concludes by explaining how Dietrich and List have recovered Arrow’s theorem as a particular application of the theory.
منابع مشابه
Arrow's theorem in judgment aggregation
In response to recent work on the aggregation of individual judgments on logically connected propositions into collective judgments, it is often asked whether judgment aggregation is a special case of Arrowian preference aggregation. We argue the opposite. After proving a general impossibility result on judgment aggregation, we construct an embedding of preference aggregation into judgment aggr...
متن کاملNot all Judgment Aggregation Should be Neutral
Judgment aggregation is concerned with the problem of aggregating individual views on logically related issues. It offers a general framework in which several different types of aggregation problems can be represented and studied. Furthermore, judgment aggregation can be applied to problems that consider together issues that are typically considered as separate aggregation problems. E.g., judgm...
متن کاملScoring rules for judgment aggregation
This paper introduces a new class of judgment aggregation rules, to be called scoring rules after their famous counterparts in preference aggregation theory. A scoring rule generates the collective judgment set which reaches the highest total scoreacross the individuals, subject to the judgment set having to be rational. Depending on how we de ne scores, we obtain several (old and new) so...
متن کاملThe theory of judgment aggregation: an introductory review
This paper provides an introductory review of the theory of judgment aggregation. It introduces the paradoxes of majority voting that originally motivated the eld, explains several key results on the impossibility of propositionwise judgment aggregation, presents a pedagogical proof of one of those results, discusses escape routes from the impossibility and relates judgment aggregation to some...
متن کاملAn Introductory Course to Judgment Aggregation
Reaching some form of consensus is often necessary for autonomous agents that want to coordinate their actions or otherwise engage in joint activities. One way to reach a consensus is by aggregating individual information, such as decisions, beliefs, preferences and constraints. Judgment aggregation is a social choice method, which generalises voting , that studies the aggregation of individual...
متن کاملFrom Preferences to Judgments and Back
The paper studies the interrelationships of the Preference Aggregation and Judgment Aggregation problems from the point of view of logical semantics. The result of the paper is twofold. On the one hand, the Preference Aggregation problem is viewed as a special case of the Judgment Aggregation one. On the other hand, the Judgment Aggregation problem is viewed as a special case of the Preference ...
متن کامل