Judgment aggregation without full rationality

Several recent results on the aggregation of judgments over logically connected propositions show that, under certain conditions, dictatorships are the only propositionwise aggregation functions generating fully rational (i.e., complete and consistent) collective judgments. A frequently mentioned route to avoid dictatorships is to allow incomplete collective judgments. We show that this route does not lead very far: we obtain oligarchies rather than dictatorships if instead of full rationality we merely require that collective judgments be deductively closed, arguably a minimal condition of rationality, compatible even with empty judgment sets. We derive several characterizations of oligarchies and provide illustrative applications to Arrowian preference aggregation and Kasher and Rubinstein''s group identification problem.mathematical economics;

The Ontology of Group Agency

We present an ontological analysis of the notion of group agency developed by Christian List and Philip Pettit. We focus on this notion as it allows us to neatly distinguish groups, organizations, corporations – to which we may ascribe agency – from mere aggregates of individuals. We develop a module for group agency within a foundational ontology and we apply it to organizations

Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation

In response to recent work on the aggregation of individual judgments on logicallyconnected propositions into collective judgments, it is often asked whether judgmentaggregation is a special case of Arrowian preference aggregation. We argue the op-posite. After proving a general impossibility result on judgment aggregation, weconstruct an embedding of preference aggregation into judgment aggregation andprove Arrow's theorem as a corollary of our result. Although we provide a new proofof Arrow's theorem, our main aim is to identify the analogue of Arrow's theoremin judgment aggregation, to clarify the relation between judgment and preferenceaggregation and to illustrate the generality of the judgment aggregation model.

Ontology Merging as Social Choice

The problem of merging several ontologies has important applications in the Semantic Web, medical ontology engineering and other domains where information from several distinct sources needs to be integrated in a coherent manner.We propose to view ontology merging as a problem of social choice, i.e. as a problem of aggregating the input of a set of individuals into an adequate collective decision. That is, we propose to view ontology merging as ontology aggregation. As a first step in this direction, we formulate several desirable properties for ontology aggregators, we identify the incompatibility of some of these properties, and we define and analyse several simple aggregation procedures. Our approach is closely related to work in judgment aggregation, but with the crucial difference that we adopt an open world assumption, by distinguishing between facts not included in an agent’s ontology and facts explicitly negated in an agent’s ontology

Social choice of convex risk measures through Arrovian aggregation of variational preferences

It is known that a combination of the Maccheroni-Marinacci-Rustichini (2006) axiomatisation of variational preferences with the Föllmer-Schied (2002,2004) representation theorem for concave monetary utility functionals provides an (individual) decision-theoretic foundation for convex risk measures. The present paper is devoted to collective decision making with regard to convex risk measures and addresses the existence problem for non-dictatorial aggregation functions of convex risk measures - in the guise of variational preferences - satisfying Arrow-type rationality axioms (weak universality, systematicity, Pareto principle). We prove an impossibility result for finite electorates, viz. a variational analogue of Arrow's impossibility theorem. For infinite electorates, the possibility of rational aggregation of variational preferences (i.e. convex risk measures) depends on a uniform continuity condition for the variational preference profiles: We shall prove variational analogues of both Campbell's impossibility theorem and Fishburn's possibility theorem. Methodologically, we adopt the model-theoretic approach to aggregation theory inspired by Lauwers-Van Liedekerke (1995). In an appendix, we apply the Dietrich-List (2010) analysis of logical aggregation based on majority voting to the problem of variational preference aggregation. The fruit is a possibility theorem, but at the cost of considerable and - at least at first sight - rather unnatural restrictions on the domain of the variational preference aggregator.variational preference representation, convex risk measure, multiple priors preferences, Arrow-type preference aggregation, judgment aggregation, abstract aggregation theory, model theory, first-order predicate logic, ultrafilter, ultraproduct