Consistent judgement aggregation: the truth-functional case

From MaRDI portal
Revision as of 18:41, 30 January 2024 by Import240129110113 (talk | contribs) (Created automatically from import240129110113)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Publication:930478

DOI10.1007/s00355-007-0261-0zbMath1142.91439OpenAlexW2080626924MaRDI QIDQ930478

Klaus Nehring, Clemens D. Puppe

Publication date: 30 June 2008

Published in: Social Choice and Welfare (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-007-0261-0




Related Items

Efficient and strategy-proof voting rules: A characterizationThe limits of epistemic democracyA general method for deciding about logically constrained issuesJudgement aggregation in non-classical logicsThe problem of no hands: responsibility voids in collective decisionsThe doctrinal paradox, the discursive dilemma, and logical aggregation theoryAggregation theory and the relevance of some issues to othersOn manipulation in merging epistemic statesApproximately classic judgement aggregationIncoherent majorities: the McGarvey problem in judgement aggregationNeutrality and relative acceptability in judgment aggregationPropositionwise judgment aggregation: the general caseA liberal paradox for judgment aggregationJudgment aggregation in search for the truthFactoring out the impossibility of logical aggregationNeutral freedom and freedom as controlIntroduction to judgment aggregationAbstract Arrowian aggregationAggregation of binary evaluationsMajority voting on restricted domainsAggregation of binary evaluations with abstentionsThe premiss-based approach to judgment aggregationJustifiable group choiceThe possibility of judgment aggregation on agendas with subjunctive implicationsThe impossibility of unbiased judgment aggregationThe rarity of consistent aggregatorsAggregation of binary evaluations for truth-functional agendasJudgment aggregation and agenda manipulationMethods for distance-based judgment aggregationPremise-based vs conclusion-based collective choice



Cites Work