×

Judgment aggregation and minimal change: a model of consensus formation by belief revision. (English) Zbl 1416.91084

The author combines two different frameworks of decision making: judgement aggregation and belief revision. First he recapitulates impossibility results for judgement aggregation functions and for postulates of revision functions (AGM postulates). In the following three sections a model is developed, which can be seen as a model of social belief change given an agenda of formulas. ‘Agents revise their own beliefs while collectively aiming for an agreement’. Such an agreement is possible ‘if the individuals are able and willing to revise their beliefs far enough’.

MSC:

91B06 Decision theory
91B10 Group preferences
91B14 Social choice
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Alchourrón, CE; Makinson, D, On the logic of theory change: contraction functions and their associated revision functions, Theoria, 48, 14-37, (1982) · Zbl 0503.03008 · doi:10.1111/j.1755-2567.1982.tb00480.x
[2] Alchourrón, CE; Gärdenfors, P; Makinson, D, On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 510-530, (1985) · Zbl 0578.03011 · doi:10.2307/2274239
[3] Booth, R, Social contraction and belief negotiation, Information Fusion, 7, 19-34, (2006) · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2005.01.002
[4] Chacón, J. L., & Pérez, R. P. (2012). Duality between merging operators and social contraction operators. In: Logic for programming, artificial intelligence, and reasoning. Springer, Berlin (pp. 183-196). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28717-6 _16 · Zbl 1180.91114
[5] DeGroot, MH, Reaching a consensus, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 118-121, (1974) · Zbl 0282.92011 · doi:10.2307/2285509
[6] Dietrich, F; List, C; Hájek, A (ed.); Hitchcock, C (ed.), Probabilistic opinion pooling, (2016), Oxford
[7] Duddy, C; Piggins, A, A measure of distance between judgment sets, Social Choice and Welfare, 39, 855-867, (2012) · Zbl 1287.91063 · doi:10.1007/s00355-011-0565-y
[8] Everaere, P., Konieczny, S., & Marquis, P. (2015). Belief merging versus judgment aggregation. In Proceedings of the 2015 international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 999-1007). Richland: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
[9] Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in flux: Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. Massachusetts: MIT Press. · Zbl 1229.03008
[10] Gärdenfors, P, A representation theorem for voting with logical consequences, Economics and Philosophy, 22, 181-190, (2006) · doi:10.1017/S026626710600085X
[11] Groenendijk, J; Stokhof, M; At, Meulen (ed.); Benthem, JFAKv (ed.), Questions, 1055-1124, (1997), Amsterdam · doi:10.1016/B978-044481714-3/50024-2
[12] Grove, A, Two modellings for theory change, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17, 157-170, (1988) · Zbl 0639.03025 · doi:10.1007/BF00247909
[13] Jeffrey, R. C. (1983). The logic of decision. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[14] Katsuno, H; Mendelzon, AO, Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change, Artificial Intelligence, 52, 263-294, (1991) · Zbl 0792.68182 · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(91)90069-V
[15] Konieczny, S., & Pino Pérez, R. (2002). Merging information under constraints: A logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(5), 773-808. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/12.5.773. · Zbl 1020.68086
[16] Konieczny, S; Pino Pérez, R, Logic based merging, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40, 239-270, (2011) · Zbl 1233.03024 · doi:10.1007/s10992-011-9175-5
[17] Lang, J., Pigozzi, G., Slavkovik, M., & van der Torre, L. (2011). Judgment aggregation rules based on minimization . In: Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge. (pp. 238-246). New York: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2000378.2000407. · Zbl 0639.03025
[18] Lehrer, K, When rational disagreement is impossible, Noûs, 10, 327-332, (1976) · Zbl 1366.03089 · doi:10.2307/2214612
[19] Leitgeb, H, The stability theory of belief, Philosophical Review, 123, 131-171, (2014) · doi:10.1215/00318108-2400575
[20] Leitgeb, H. (2017). The stability of belief: How rational belief coheres with probability. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732631.001.0001
[21] List, C, Group communication and the transformation of judgments: an impossibility result, Journal of Political Philosophy, 19, 1-27, (2011) · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00369.x
[22] List, C, The theory of judgment aggregation: an introductory review, Synthese, 187, 179-207, (2012) · Zbl 1275.91049 · doi:10.1007/s11229-011-0025-3
[23] List, C; Pettit, P, Aggregating sets of judgments: an impossibility result, Economics and Philosophy, 18, 89-110, (2002) · doi:10.1017/S0266267102001098
[24] List, C., & Pettit, P. (2011). Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591565.001.0001
[25] Miller, MK; Osherson, D, Methods for distance-based judgment aggregation, Social Choice and Welfare, 32, 575-601, (2009) · Zbl 1180.91114 · doi:10.1007/s00355-008-0340-x
[26] Pigozzi, G, Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation, Synthese, 152, 285-298, (2006) · Zbl 1112.03305 · doi:10.1007/s11229-006-9063-7
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.