Belief merging, judgment aggregation and some links with social choice theory
نویسندگان
چکیده
In this paper we explore the relation between three areas: judgment aggregation, belief merging and social choice theory. Judgment aggregation studies how to aggregate individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective decision on the same propositions. When majority voting is applied to some propositions (the premises) it may however give a different outcome than majority voting applied to another set of propositions (the conclusion). Starting from this so-called doctrinal paradox, the paper surveys the literature on judgment aggregation (and its relation to preference aggregation), and shows that the application of a well known belief merging operator can dissolve the paradox. Finally, the use of distances is shown to establish a link between belief merging and preference aggregation in social choice theory. ∗A preliminary version of this paper has been presented at the Dagstuhl seminar Belief change in rational agents: perspectives from artificial intelligence, philosophy and economics in August 2005. We thank the organizers of the seminar, James Delgrande, Jérôme Lang and Hans Rott, and the participants for stimulating discussion. †Gabriella Pigozzi’s research was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (UK), the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and by the German Program for the Investment in the Future. 1 Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 05321 Belief Change in Rational Agents: Perspectives from Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy, and Economics http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2005/333
منابع مشابه
Belief Merging versus Judgment Aggregation
The problem of aggregating pieces of propositional information coming from several agents has given rise to an intense research activity. Two distinct theories have emerged. On the one hand, belief merging has been considered in AI as an extension of belief revision. On the other hand, judgment aggregation has been developed in political philosophy and social choice theory. Judgment aggregation...
متن کاملDeclarative Belief Set Merging Using Merging Plans
We present a declarative framework for belief set merging tasks over (possibly heterogeneous) knowledge bases, where belief sets are sets of literals. The framework is designed generically for flexible deployment to a range of applications, and allows to specify complex merging tasks in tree-structured merging plans, whose leaves are the possible belief sets of the knowledge bases that are proc...
متن کاملOn Egalitarian Belief Merging
Belief merging aims at defining the beliefs of a group from the beliefs of each member of the group. It is related to more general notions of aggregation from economy (social choice theory). Two main subclasses of belief merging operators exist: majority operators which are related to utilitarianism, and arbitration operators which are related to egalitarianism. Though utilitarian (majority) op...
متن کاملLogic Based Merging
Belief merging aims at combining several pieces of information coming from different sources. In this paper we review the works on belief merging of propositional bases. We discuss the relationship between merging, revision, update and confluence, and some links between belief merging and social choice theory. Finally we mention the main generalizations of these works in other logical frameworks.
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2005