ogically interconnected propositions; mapped into a collective judgment
Abstract :
[en] Judgment aggregation studies how agent opinions on logically interconnected propositions can be mapped into a collective judgment on the same propositions, and is plagued by impossibility results. In this paper we study the central notion of independence in these impossibility results. First, we argue that the distinction between the premises and conclusions play an important role in the benchmark examples of judgment aggregation. Second, we consider the notion of independence in judgment aggregation frameworks, and we observe that the distinction between premises and conclusion is not taken into account. Third, based on our analysis, we introduce independence assumptions that distinguish premises from conclusion. We show that, by introducing new operators that satisfy our independence assumptions, the problematic impossibility results no longer hold.
Disciplines :
Computer science
Identifiers :
UNILU:UL-CONFERENCE-2010-308
Author, co-author :
Pigozzi, Gabriella ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Communication (FSTC) > Computer Science and Communications Research Unit (CSC)
van der Torre, Leon ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Communication (FSTC) > Computer Science and Communications Research Unit (CSC)
External co-authors :
no
Language :
English
Title :
Premise Independence in Judgment Aggregation
Publication date :
2007
Event name :
Formal Models of Belief Change in Rational Agents
Event date :
2007
Audience :
International
Main work title :
Formal Models of Belief Change in Rational Agents
Publisher :
Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum fuer Informatik (IBFI)