Unpacking the Court

Kornhauser, Lewis A.; Sager, Lawrence G.

doi:10.2307/796436

Cited by 280 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This "evolutionary" impact over the decision making process has been an important issue in the work that gave rise to the interest in judgment aggregation [9,10], but it has fallen out of scope in the more formal study of judgment aggregation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Complete Conclusion-Based Procedure for Judgment Aggregation

Pigozzi¹,

Slavkovik²,

Torre³

2009

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Judgment aggregation is a formal theory reasoning about how a group of agents can aggregate individual judgments on connected propositions into a collective judgment on the same propositions. Three procedures for successfully aggregating judgments sets are: 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Judgment aggregation [9,10,12] studies the aggregation of individual judgments of small groups such as expert panels, legal courts, boards and councils. We talk about judgment aggregation whenever a group of individuals needs to make a collective decision on a finite set of issues, and these propositions are logically connected.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Complete Conclusion-Based Procedure for Judgment Aggregation

Pigozzi¹,

Slavkovik²,

Torre³

2009

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A central problem that has triggered much work in the field of judgement aggregation is the so-called "doctrinal paradox" (Kornhauser and Sager, 1986) or, more generally, the "discursive dilemma" (List and Pettit, 2002). I start by describing two examples that illustrate the problem.…”

Section: The Discursive Dilemmamentioning

confidence: 99%

Judgement Aggregation and Distributed Thinking

Spiekermann

2013

Cognition Beyond the Brain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, judgement aggregation has emerged as an important area of social choice theory. Judgement aggregation is concerned with aggregating sets of individual judgements over logically connected propositions into a set of collective judgements. It has been shown that even seemingly weak conditions on the aggregation function make it impossible to find functions that produce rational collective judgements from all possible rational individual judgements. This implies that the step from individual judgements to collective judgements requires trade-offs between different desiderata, such as universal domain, rationality, epistemological quality, and unbiasedness. These dilemmas challenge us to decide which conditions we should relax. The typical application for judgement aggregation is the problem of group decision making. Juries and expert committees are the stock examples. However, the relevance of judgement aggregation goes beyond these cases. In this survey I review some core results in the field of judgement aggregation and social epistemology and discuss their implications for the analysis of distributed thinking.

show abstract

“…Now a preference relation is fully rational (i.e., asymmetric, transitive and connected) if and only if A is consistent and contains a member of each pair xP y; yP x 2 X with x 6 = y. Intermediateness of ( 1 ; :::; n ) then translates into unidimensional orderedness of (A 1 ; :::; A n ). 20 Analogously to proposition 7, the non-implication claims in (a) do not refer to a …xed Corollary 9 (a) Restricted to pro…les of consistent judgment sets, local unidimensional alignment implies any of the other three local conditions; local single-canyonedness implies local single-plateauedness; there are no other pairwise implications between the four local conditions. (b) Restricted to pro…les of consistent and complete (or just of opinionated) judgment sets, the four local conditions are equivalent.…”

Section: The General Form Of the Local Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The recent …eld of judgment aggregation emerged from the areas of law and political philosophy (e.g., Kornhauser and Sager [20] and Pettit [32]) and was formalized social-choice-theoretically by List and Pettit [24]. The literature contains several impossibility results generalizing the observation that on an unrestricted domain majority judgments can be logically inconsistent (e.g., List and Pettit [24] and [25], Pauly and van Hees [31], Dietrich [3], Gärdenfors [15], Nehring and Puppe [30], van Hees [41], Mongin [27], Dietrich and List [7], and Dokow and Holzman [13] [35]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Majority voting on restricted domains

Dietrich

List

2010

Journal of Economic Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In judgment aggregation, unlike preference aggregation, not much is known about domain restrictions that guarantee consistent majority outcomes. We introduce several conditions on individual judgments su¢ -cient for consistent majority judgments. Some are based on global orders of propositions or individuals, others on local orders, still others not on orders at all. Some generalize classic social-choice-theoretic domain conditions, others have no counterpart. Our most general condition generalizes Sen's triplewise value-restriction, itself the most general classic condition. We also prove a new characterization theorem: for a large class of domains, if there exists any aggregation function satisfying some democratic conditions, then majority voting is the unique such function. Taken together, our results provide new support for the robustness of majority rule.

show abstract

Unpacking the Court

Cited by 280 publications

References 0 publications

A Complete Conclusion-Based Procedure for Judgment Aggregation

A Complete Conclusion-Based Procedure for Judgment Aggregation

Judgement Aggregation and Distributed Thinking

Majority voting on restricted domains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About