2,803 research outputs found
A non-proposition-wise variant of majority voting for aggregating judgments
Majority voting is commonly used in aggregating judgments. The literature to date on judgment
aggregation (JA) has focused primarily on proposition-wise majority voting (PMV). Given a set of issues
on which a group is trying to make collective judgments, PMV aggregates individual judgments issue by
issue, and satisfies a salient property of JA rules—independence. This paper introduces a variant of
majority voting called holistic majority voting (HMV). This new variant also meets the condition of
independence. However, instead of aggregating judgments issue by issue, it aggregates individual
judgments en bloc. A salient and straightforward feature of HMV is that it guarantees the logical
consistency of the propositions expressing collective judgments, provided that the individual points of
view are consistent. This feature contrasts with the known inability of PMV to guarantee the consistency
of the collective outcome. Analogously, while PMV may present a set of judgments that have been
rejected by everyone in the group as collectively accepted, the collective judgments returned by HMV
have been accepted by a majority of individuals in the group and, therefore, rejected by a minority of
them at most. In addition, HMV satisfies a large set of appealing properties, as PMV also does. However,
HMV may not return any complete proposition expressing the judgments of the group on all the issues at
stake, even in cases where PMV does. Moreover, demanding completeness from HMV leads to
impossibility results similar to the known impossibilities on PMV and on proposition-wise JA rules in
genera
A pooling approach to judgment aggregation
The literature has focused on a particular way of aggregating judgments: Given a set of yes or no
questions or issues, the individuals’ judgments are then aggregated separately, issue by issue.
Applied in this way, the majority method does not guarantee the logical consistency of the set of
judgments obtained. This fact has been the focus of critiques of the majority method and similar
procedures. This paper focuses on another way of aggregating judgments. The main difference is
that aggregation is made en bloc on all the issues at stake. The main consequence is that the
majority method applied in this way does always guarantee the logical consistency of the
collective judgments. Since it satisfies a large set of attractive properties, it should provide the
basis for more positive assessment if applied using the proposed pooling approach than if used
separately. The paper extends the analysis to the pooling supermajority and plurality rules, with
similar result
Algunos elementos de lógica, conjuntos y topología difusas
Se consideran elementos del álgebra presentes en lógicas multi-valuadas, discutiendo previamente las nociones de valor de verdad, modelos y funciones conectivos; se introduce la noción de conjuntos y topologías difusos
Design-Time Quantification of Integrity in Cyber-Physical-Systems
In a software system it is possible to quantify the amount of information
that is leaked or corrupted by analysing the flows of information present in
the source code. In a cyber-physical system, information flows are not only
present at the digital level, but also at a physical level, and to and fro the
two levels. In this work, we provide a methodology to formally analyse a
Cyber-Physical System composite model (combining physics and control) using an
information flow-theoretic approach. We use this approach to quantify the level
of vulnerability of a system with respect to attackers with different
capabilities. We illustrate our approach by means of a water distribution case
study
- …