File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1007/s00355-021-01319-w
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85103130999
- WOS: WOS:000630847300001
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Premise-based vs conclusion-based collective choice
Title | Premise-based vs conclusion-based collective choice |
---|---|
Authors | |
Issue Date | 2021 |
Citation | Social Choice and Welfare, 2021, v. 57, n. 2, p. 361-385 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Imagine a group of individuals faces a yes-no type question whose answer is logically determined by multiple premises. There are two salient types of procedures to aggregate individual judgments—the “premise-based way” (PBW) and the “conclusion-based way” (CBW). We derive necessary and sufficient conditions under which two procedures are universally ordered. If (and only if) a decision problem takes a “conjunctive” form, PBW derives a positive collective judgment (i.e., “yes”) whenever CBW does. Furthermore, if we replace “conjunctive” with “disjunctive” in the previous line, PBW derives a negative collective judgment (i.e., “no”) whenever PBW does. These observations highlight the fact that these two procedures are a mathematical dual of each another. Asymptotic properties are also studied. Under classical Condorcetian assumptions, PBW ensures the probability that the voting outcome is correct converges to one as the size of a group tends to infinity, whereas this holds for CBW only if an additional condition is satisfied. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/330697 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 0.5 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.582 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Miyashita, Masaki | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-09-05T12:13:21Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-09-05T12:13:21Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Social Choice and Welfare, 2021, v. 57, n. 2, p. 361-385 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0176-1714 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/330697 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Imagine a group of individuals faces a yes-no type question whose answer is logically determined by multiple premises. There are two salient types of procedures to aggregate individual judgments—the “premise-based way” (PBW) and the “conclusion-based way” (CBW). We derive necessary and sufficient conditions under which two procedures are universally ordered. If (and only if) a decision problem takes a “conjunctive” form, PBW derives a positive collective judgment (i.e., “yes”) whenever CBW does. Furthermore, if we replace “conjunctive” with “disjunctive” in the previous line, PBW derives a negative collective judgment (i.e., “no”) whenever PBW does. These observations highlight the fact that these two procedures are a mathematical dual of each another. Asymptotic properties are also studied. Under classical Condorcetian assumptions, PBW ensures the probability that the voting outcome is correct converges to one as the size of a group tends to infinity, whereas this holds for CBW only if an additional condition is satisfied. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Social Choice and Welfare | - |
dc.title | Premise-based vs conclusion-based collective choice | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s00355-021-01319-w | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85103130999 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 57 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 361 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 385 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1432-217X | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000630847300001 | - |