Aggregating infinitely many probability measures
AbstractThe problem of how to rationally aggregate probability measures occurs in particular (i) when a group of agents, each holding probabilistic beliefs, needs to rationalise a collective decision on the basis of a single ‘aggregate belief system’ and (ii) when an individual whose belief system is compatible with several (possibly infinitely many) probability measures wishes to evaluate her options on the basis of a single aggregate prior via classical expected utility theory (a psychologically plausible account of individual decisions). We investigate this problem by first recalling some negative results from preference and judgment aggregation theory which show that the aggregate of several probability measures should not be conceived as the probability measure induced by the aggregate of the corresponding expected-utility preferences. We describe how McConway’s (Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 76, no. 374, pp. 410–414, 1981) theory of probabilistic opinion pooling can be generalised to cover the case of the aggregation of infinite profiles of finitely additive probability measures, too; we prove the existence of aggregation functionals satisfying responsiveness axioms à la McConway plus additional desiderata even for infinite electorates. On the basis of the theory of propositional-attitude aggregation, we argue that this is the most natural aggregation theory for probability measures. Our aggregation functionals for the case of infinite electorates are neither oligarchic nor integral-based and satisfy (at least) a weak anonymity condition. The delicate set-theoretic status of integral-based aggregation functionals for infinite electorates is discussed.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Bielefeld University, Center for Mathematical Economics in its series Working Papers with number 499.
Length: 20 pages
Date of creation: Jan 2014
Date of revision:
probabilistic opinion pooling; general aggregation theory; Richard Bradley; multiple priors; Arrow’s impossibility theorem; Bayesian epistemology; society of mind; finite anonymity; ultrafilter; measure problem; non-standard analysis;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
- C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2014-02-15 (All new papers)
- NEP-CDM-2014-02-15 (Collective Decision-Making)
- NEP-SOG-2014-02-15 (Sociology of Economics)
- NEP-UPT-2014-02-15 (Utility Models & Prospect Theory)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Herzberg, Frederik & Eckert, Daniel, 2012. "The model-theoretic approach to aggregation: Impossibility results for finite and infinite electorates," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 41-47.
- Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
- Hylland, Aanund & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 1979. "The Impossibility of Bayesian Group Decision Making with Separate Aggregation of Beliefs and Values," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(6), pages 1321-36, November.
- Frederik Herzberg, 2013. "Aggregation of Monotonic Bernoullian Archimedean preferences: Arrovian impossibility results," Working Papers 488, Bielefeld University, Center for Mathematical Economics.
- Lauwers, Luc & Van Liedekerke, Luc, 1995. "Ultraproducts and aggregation," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 217-237.
- Frank Riedel, 2009. "Optimal Stopping With Multiple Priors," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 857-908, 05.
- Mark Fey, 2004. "May’s Theorem with an infinite population," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 275-293, October.
- Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2006.
"Ambiguity Aversion, Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences,"
Econometric Society, vol. 74(6), pages 1447-1498, November.
- Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2004. "Ambiguity Aversion, Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 12, Collegio Carlo Alberto, revised 2006.
- Campbell, Donald E., 1990. "Intergenerational social choice without the Pareto principle," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 414-423, April.
- Christian Klamler & Daniel Eckert, 2009. "A simple ultrafilter proof for an impossibility theorem in judgment aggregation," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(1), pages 319-327.
- Frederik Herzberg & Daniel Eckert, 2010. "Impossibility results for infinite-electorate abstract aggregation rules," Working Papers 427, Bielefeld University, Center for Mathematical Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dr. Frederik Herzberg).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.