Aggregating incoherent agents who disagree

DOI10.1007/S11229-017-1613-7MaRDI QIDQ2053354zbMATH OpenOpenAlexDBLPWikidataFDO

Authors Richard Pettigrew

Publication date 29 November 2021

Published in Synthese (Search for Journal in Brave)

Copyright license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.03981

zbMATH Keywords

accuracyBayesian epistemologyjudgment aggregationprobabilistic opinion pooling

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Foundations and philosophical topics in statistics (62A01) Bayesian problems; characterization of Bayes procedures (62C10)

Abstract: In this paper, we explore how we should aggregate the degrees of belief of of a group of agents to give a single coherent set of degrees of belief, when at least some of those agents might be probabilistically incoherent. There are a number of way of aggregating degrees of belief, and there are a number of ways of fixing incoherent degrees of belief. When we have picked one of each, should we aggregate first and then fix, or fix first and then aggregate? Or should we try to do both at once? And when do these different procedures agree with one another? In this paper, we focus particularly on the final question.

Recommendations

• The joint aggregation of beliefs and degrees of belief
• Aggregating disparate estimates of chance
• Bayesian group agents and two modes of aggregation
• A Theory of Bayesian Groups
• Bayesian group belief

Cites work

• A general method for comparing probability assessors
• A note on the inevitability of maximum entropy
• Accuracy and Coherence: Prospects for an Alethic Epistemology of Partial Belief
• Aggregating disparate estimates of chance
• Allocation, Lehrer models, and the consensus of probabilities
• Axiomatic characterization of the quadratic scoring rule
• Axiomatic characterizations of information measures
• Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation
• Combining probability distributions: a critique and an annotated bibliography. With comments, and a rejoinder by the authors
• Further evidence against independence preservation in expert judgement synthesis
• In defense of the maximum entropy inference process
• Income distributions and decomposable divergence measures
• Lehrer and the consensus proposal
• Marginalization and Linear Opinion Pools
• On the Optimality of Conditional Expectation as a Bregman Predictor
• Peer disagreement and independence preservation
• Probabilistic Coherence and Proper Scoring Rules
• Probabilistic opinion pooling generalized. I: General agendas
• Probability amalgamation and the independence issue: A reply to Laddaga
• Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation
• Updating Subjective Probability
• What's so special about Euclidean distance? A characterization with applications to mobility and spatial voting
• Why least squares and maximum entropy? An axiomatic approach to inference for linear inverse problems

Cited in

(3)

• Decision-making by hierarchies of discordant agents
• Aggregating agents with opinions about different propositions
• Radical pooling and imprecise probabilities

This page was built for publication: Aggregating incoherent agents who disagree

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2053354)