• français
    • English
  • English 
    • français
    • English
  • Login
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
BIRD Home

Browse

This CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsJournals BIRDResearch centres & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsJournals

My Account

Login

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

Succinctness of Languages for Judgment Aggregation

Thumbnail
Date
2016
Link to item file
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3032049
Sujet
social choice theory; combinatorial domains; computational complexity
Conference name
15th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'16)
Conference date
04-2016
Conference city
Cape Town
Conference country
South Africa
Book title
KR'16 Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
Author
Baral, Chitta; Delgrande, James; Wolter, Frank
Publisher
AAAI Press
Publisher city
Palo Alto (USA)
Year
2016
Pages number
642
ISBN
978-1-57735-755-1
URI
https://basepub.dauphine.fr/handle/123456789/16483
Collections
  • LAMSADE : Publications
Metadata
Show full item record
Author
Endriss, Ulle
84550 Institute for Logic, Language and Computation [ILLC]
Grandi, Umberto
status unknown
de Haan, Ronald
status unknown
Lang, Jérôme
989 Laboratoire d'analyse et modélisation de systèmes pour l'aide à la décision [LAMSADE]
Type
Communication / Conférence
Item number of pages
176-186
Abstract (EN)
We review several different languages for collective decision making problems, in which agents express their judgments, opinions, or beliefs over elements of a logically structured domain. Several such languages have been proposed in the literature to compactly represent the questions on which the agents are asked to give their views. In particular, the framework of judgment aggregation allows agents to vote directly on complex, logically related formulas, whereas the setting of binary aggregation asks agents to vote on propositional variables, over which dependencies are expressed by means of an integrity constraint. We compare these two languages and some of their variants according to their relative succinctness and according to the computational complexity of aggregating several individual views expressed in such languages into a collective judgment. Our main finding is that the formula-based language of judgment aggregation is more succinct than the constraint-based language of binary aggregation. In many (but not all) practically relevant situations, this increase in succinctness does not entail an increase in complexity of the corresponding problem of computing the outcome of an aggregation rule.

  • Accueil Bibliothèque
  • Site de l'Université Paris-Dauphine
  • Contact
SCD Paris Dauphine - Place du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny 75775 Paris Cedex 16

 Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 France (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) license.