IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/usi/wpaper/754.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Symmetric Consequence Relations and Strategy-Proof Judgment Aggregation

Author

Listed:
  • Stefano Vannucci

Abstract

It is shown that the posets of both substructural and classical symmetric consequence relations ordered by set-inclusion are (non-boolean) completely distributive complete lattices. Therefore, those two basic versions of symmetric consequence relations are amenable to anonymous neutral and idempotent strategy- proof aggregation by majority polynomial rules on single-peaked domains. In particular, the majority rule is characterized as the only aggregation rule for odd profiles of symmetric consequence relations that is anonymous, bi-idempotent and strategy-proof on arbitrary rich locally unimodal domains.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefano Vannucci, 2017. "Symmetric Consequence Relations and Strategy-Proof Judgment Aggregation," Department of Economics University of Siena 754, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    • Handle: RePEc:usi:wpaper:754
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.deps.unisi.it/quaderni/754.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Franz Dietrich, 2007. "A generalised model of judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(4), pages 529-565, June.
    2. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2007. "Strategy-Proof Judgment Aggregation," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 269-300, November.
    3. Vannucci, Stefano, 2016. "Weakly unimodal domains, anti-exchange properties, and coalitional strategy-proofness of aggregation rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 56-67.
    4. Nehring, Klaus & Puppe, Clemens, 2007. "The structure of strategy-proof social choice -- Part I: General characterization and possibility results on median spaces," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 269-305, July.
    5. Dokow, Elad & Holzman, Ron, 2010. "Aggregation of binary evaluations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 495-511, March.
    6. Monjardet, B., 1990. "Arrowian characterizations of latticial federation consensus functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 51-71, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bozbay, İrem & Dietrich, Franz & Peters, Hans, 2014. "Judgment aggregation in search for the truth," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 571-590.
    2. Bozbay, Irem, 2012. "Truth-Seeking Judgment Aggregation over Interconnected Issues," Working Papers 2012:31, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    3. List, Christian & Polak, Ben, 2010. "Introduction to judgment aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 441-466, March.
    4. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2017. "Probabilistic opinion pooling generalized. Part one: general agendas," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 747-786, April.
    5. Dietrich, Franz, 2016. "Judgment aggregation and agenda manipulation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 113-136.
    6. Dietrich, Franz & Mongin, Philippe, 2010. "The premiss-based approach to judgment aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 562-582, March.
    7. Schoch, Daniel, 2015. "Game Form Representation for Judgement and Arrovian Aggregation," MPRA Paper 64311, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2010. "Majority voting on restricted domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 512-543, March.
    9. Zoi Terzopoulou & Ulle Endriss, 2020. "Neutrality and relative acceptability in judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 25-49, June.
    10. List, Christian, 2010. "The theory of judgment aggregation: an introductory review," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 27596, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Jordi Ganzer-Ripoll & Natalia Criado & Maite Lopez-Sanchez & Simon Parsons & Juan A. Rodriguez-Aguilar, 2019. "Combining Social Choice Theory and Argumentation: Enabling Collective Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 127-173, February.
    12. Klaus Nehring & Clemens Puppe, 2008. "Consistent judgement aggregation: the truth-functional case," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(1), pages 41-57, June.
    13. Terzopoulou, Zoi, 2020. "Quota rules for incomplete judgments," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 23-36.
    14. Michael Miller & Daniel Osherson, 2009. "Methods for distance-based judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(4), pages 575-601, May.
    15. Aureli Alabert & Mercè Farré, 2022. "The doctrinal paradox: comparison of decision rules in a probabilistic framework," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(4), pages 863-895, May.
    16. Stefano Vannucci, 2019. "Majority judgment and strategy-proofness: a characterization," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(3), pages 863-886, September.
    17. Nehring, Klaus & Pivato, Marcus & Puppe, Clemens, 2014. "The Condorcet set: Majority voting over interconnected propositions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 268-303.
    18. Nehring, Klaus & Pivato, Marcus & Puppe, Clemens, 2011. "Condorcet admissibility: Indeterminacy and path-dependence under majority voting on interconnected decisions," MPRA Paper 32434, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2008. "Judgment aggregation without full rationality," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(1), pages 15-39, June.
    20. Dietrich, F.K. & List, C., 2008. "The aggregation of propositional attitudes: towards a general theory," Research Memorandum 047, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:usi:wpaper:754. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Fabrizio Becatti (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/desieit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.