Formal ex-post rationalization - A complete conclusion-based procedure for judgment aggregation (bibtex)
by Gabriella Pigozzi, Marija Slavkovik, Leendert van der Torre
Abstract:
Judgment aggregation is a formal theory reasoning about how a group of agents can aggregate their individual judgments on connected propositions into a collective set of judgments on these propositions. There are three procedures for aggregating judgments sets : premise-based procedure, conclusion-based procedure and distance-based merging. The conclusion-based procedure has been little investigated because it provides a way to aggregate the conclusions, but not the premises, thus it outputs an incomplete judgment set. The goal of this paper is to present a conclusion-based procedure outputting complete judgment sets. Our procedure is composed of two steps. First, majority voting is used to aggregate the conclusion as it has been previously done by the incomplete conclusion-based procedure. Once a collective conclusion is reached, distance-based merging is used to aggregate the premises using the chosen conclusion as an integrity constraint to select only those premise sets which support it. An additional integrity constraint can be added in the merging phase to ensure that unanimity is heeded when selecting the premises. Additionally we discuss the issue of manipulability of the proposed procedure by drawing parallels with existing work on manipulability of belief merging operators.
Reference:
Formal ex-post rationalization - A complete conclusion-based procedure for judgment aggregation (Gabriella Pigozzi, Marija Slavkovik, Leendert van der Torre), In Proceedings of the Cinquièmes Journées Francophones Modèles Formel de l'Interaction (MFI 09), 2009. (3-5 June 2009, Lannion, France)
Bibtex Entry:
@InProceedings{Pigozzi2009,
  Title                    = {Formal ex-post rationalization - A complete conclusion-based procedure for judgment aggregation},
  Author                   = {Gabriella Pigozzi and Marija Slavkovik and Leendert van der Torre},
  Booktitle                = {Proceedings of the Cinqui{\`{e}}mes Journ{\'{e}}es Francophones Mod{\`{e}}les Formel de l'Interaction (MFI 09)},
  Year                     = {2009},
  Month                    = jun,
  Note                     = {3-5 June 2009, Lannion, France},

  Abstract                 = {Judgment aggregation is a formal theory reasoning about how a group of agents can aggregate their individual judgments on connected propositions into a collective set of judgments on these propositions. There are three procedures for aggregating judgments sets : premise-based procedure, conclusion-based procedure and distance-based merging. The conclusion-based procedure has been little investigated because it provides a way to aggregate the conclusions, but not the premises, thus it outputs an incomplete judgment set. The goal of this paper is to present a conclusion-based procedure outputting complete judgment sets. Our procedure is composed of two steps. First, majority voting is used to aggregate the conclusion as it has been previously done by the incomplete conclusion-based procedure. Once a collective conclusion is reached, distance-based merging is used to aggregate the premises using the chosen conclusion as an integrity constraint to select only those premise sets which support it. An additional integrity constraint can be added in the merging phase to ensure that unanimity is heeded when selecting the premises. Additionally we discuss the issue of manipulability of the proposed procedure by drawing parallels with existing work on manipulability of belief merging operators.},
  Affiliation              = {icr},
  Bdsk-url-1               = {http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/mfi09/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/PigozziSlavkovikVandertorre.pdf},
  Date-modified            = {2011-09-25 17:50:06 +0200},
  Timestamp                = {2013.07.26},
  Url                      = {http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/mfi09/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/PigozziSlavkovikVandertorre.pdf}
}
Powered by bibtexbrowser