File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Premise-based vs conclusion-based collective choice

TitlePremise-based vs conclusion-based collective choice
Authors
Issue Date2021
Citation
Social Choice and Welfare, 2021, v. 57, n. 2, p. 361-385 How to Cite?
AbstractImagine 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 Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/330697
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 0.5
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.582
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMiyashita, Masaki-
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-05T12:13:21Z-
dc.date.available2023-09-05T12:13:21Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.citationSocial Choice and Welfare, 2021, v. 57, n. 2, p. 361-385-
dc.identifier.issn0176-1714-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/330697-
dc.description.abstractImagine 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.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofSocial Choice and Welfare-
dc.titlePremise-based vs conclusion-based collective choice-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00355-021-01319-w-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85103130999-
dc.identifier.volume57-
dc.identifier.issue2-
dc.identifier.spage361-
dc.identifier.epage385-
dc.identifier.eissn1432-217X-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000630847300001-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats