Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Reliable Methods of Judgment Aggregation

By Stephan Hartmann, G Pigozzi and J Sprenger


The aggregation of consistent individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective judgment on the same propositions has recently drawn much attention. Seemingly reasonable aggregation procedures, such as propositionwise majority voting, cannot ensure an equally consistent collective conclusion. The literature on judgment aggregation refers to such a problem as the discursive dilemma. In this paper we assume that the decision which the group is trying to reach is factually right or wrong. Hence, the question we address in this paper is how good the various approaches are at selecting the right conclusion. We focus on two approaches: distance-based procedures and Bayesian analysis. Under the former we also subsume the conclusion- and premise-based procedures discussed in the literature. Whereas we believe the Bayesian analysis to be theoretically optimal, the distance-based approaches have more parsimonious presuppositions and are therefore easier to apply.Working pape

Topics: PHI
Year: 2007
OAI identifier:
Provided by: SAS-SPACE

Suggested articles


  1. (2002). Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result.
  2. (2006). Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare,
  3. (2006). Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation. doi
  4. (2006). Democratic answers to complex questions. An epistemic perspective,
  5. (2007). Judgment aggregation - A bibliography on the discursive dilemma, the doctrinal paradox and decisions on multiple propositions.
  6. Judgment aggregation and the problem of truth-tracking.
  7. (2006). Logic-based approaches to information fusion.
  8. (1999). Merging with integrity constraints. In
  9. (1985). Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis. Second Edition.
  10. (2006). The discursive dilemma and public reason.
  11. (2005). The probability of inconsistencies in complex collective decisions.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.