Aggregation of binary evaluations with abstentions☆
References (25)
- et al.
Collective rationality and dictatorship: The scope of the Arrow theorem
J. Econ. Theory
(1979) Semiorders and collective choice
J. Econ. Theory
(1979)Judgment aggregation: (Im)possibility theorems
J. Econ. Theory
(2006)- et al.
Aggregation of binary evaluations
J. Econ. Theory
(2010) Factoring out the impossibility of logical aggregation
J. Econ. Theory
(2008)Arrow's theorem as a corollary
Econ. Letters
(2003)- et al.
Algebraic aggregation theory
J. Econ. Theory
(1986) Social choice theory
On the theory of aggregation
J. Econ. Theory
(1975)Social Choice and Individual Values
(1951)
A generalised model of judgment aggregation
Soc. Choice Welfare
Cited by (46)
Quota rules for incomplete judgments
2020, Mathematical Social SciencesCitation Excerpt :Prior work in the area has already considered incomplete judgments, both at the collective and at the individual level. In the former direction, the assumption that an aggregation rule has to produce a collective decision regarding all issues at stake has been relaxed by Gärdenfors (2006), Dietrich and List (2008), and Dokow and Holzman (2010) in the hope of circumventing typical impossibility results of the field stating that there does not exist any reasonable rule satisfying simultaneously a handful of desirable axioms. Allowing individuals to possibly abstain on some of the issues has been explored by the same authors as well, again in the light of some positive news regarding possibility results (with no great success).
Aggregation theory and the relevance of some issues to others
2015, Journal of Economic TheoryCitation Excerpt :In sum, weakening classical independence opens up new possibilities (such as priority rules), but does not generally free us from impossibility. It is of course well-known that classical independence is very hard to satisfy: besides the cited Arrow-like impossibility theorem, see for instance the impossibility theorems in List and Pettit (2002), Pauly and van Hees (2006), Dietrich (2006a), Gärdenfors (2006), Mongin (2008), Nehring and Puppe (2002/2010, 2008), Dietrich and List (2007a, 2008, 2013), Dokow and Holzman (2010c), Nehring (2005) and Dietrich and Mongin (2010). The classical independence axiom is often criticized (e.g., Chapman, 2002; Mongin, 2008), but rarely weakened.
Many-valued judgment aggregation: Characterizing the possibility/impossibility boundary
2013, Journal of Economic TheoryLifting integrity constraints in binary aggregation
2013, Artificial IntelligenceCitation Excerpt :A similar problem is that of extending our definitions to cover the case of non-binary issues, e.g. by allowing individuals to abstain on certain issues. Related work has been done in this respect by Dokow and Holzman [12]. The results proved in the present paper should not be interpreted as limiting the possibility of consistent aggregation, but rather as specifying for each application at hand the right conditions that make it possible.
Many-Valued Judgment Aggregation – Some New Possibility Results
2023, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)Some Consistency Criteria for Many-Valued Judgment Aggregation
2023, Proceedings of The International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic
- ☆
The first version of this paper was circulated in December 2006. Results that are essentially the same as the main result of this paper, but are phrased in a model of logical judgment aggregation, were independently obtained by Dietrich and List (2008) [10]. The overlap between the two works was discovered just before the Cowles Workshop on “Aggregation of Opinions,” September 2006, where both papers were presented. The comments of an associate editor and two referees are gratefully acknowledged.
- 1
Part of this author's work was done while he was a Fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in the academic year 2004–2005. Research supported by the Japan Technion Society Research Fund and by the Israel Science Foundation.