17,177 research outputs found
Judgment aggregation in search for the truth
We analyze the problem of aggregating judgments over multiple issues from the perspective of whether aggregate judgments manage to efficiently use all voters' private information. While new in judgment aggregation theory, this perspective is familiar in a different body of literature about voting between two alternatives where voters' disagreements stem from conflicts of information rather than of interest. Combining the two bodies of literature, we consider a simple judgment aggregation problem and model the private information underlying voters' judgments. Assuming that voters share a preference for true collective judgments, we analyze the resulting strategic incentives and determine which voting rules efficiently use all private information. We find that in certain, but not all cases a quota rule should be used, which decides on each issue according to whether the proportion of ‘yes’ votes exceeds a particular quota
Complexity of Judgment Aggregation
We analyse the computational complexity of three problems in judgment aggregation:
(1) computing a collective judgment from a profile of individual judgments (the winner
determination problem); (2) deciding whether a given agent can influence the outcome
of a judgment aggregation procedure in her favour by reporting insincere judgments (the
strategic manipulation problem); and (3) deciding whether a given judgment aggregation
scenario is guaranteed to result in a logically consistent outcome, independently from what
the judgments supplied by the individuals are (the problem of the safety of the agenda).
We provide results both for specific aggregation procedures (the quota rules, the premisebased
procedure, and a distance-based procedure) and for classes of aggregation procedures
characterised in terms of fundamental axioms
- …