Judgment Aggregation under Issue Dependencies

We introduce a new family of judgment aggregation rules, called the binomial rules, designed to account for hidden dependencies between some of the issues being judged. To place them within the landscape of judgment aggregation rules, we analyse both their axiomatic properties and their computational complexity, and we show that they contain both the well-known distance-based rule and the basic rule returning the most frequent overall judgment as special cases. To evaluate the performance of our rules empirically, we apply them to a dataset of crowdsourced judgments regarding the quality of hotels extracted from the travel website TripAdvisor. In our experiments we distinguish between the full dataset and a subset of highly polarised judgments, and we develop a new notion of polarisation for profiles of judgments for this purpose, which may also be of independent interest.

[1]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Belief Merging versus Judgment Aggregation , 2015, AAMAS.

[2]  Patricia Rose Gomes de Melo Viol Martins,et al.  MATHEMATICS WITHOUT NUMBERS: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF LOGIC , 2015 .

[3]  Franz Dietrich.  Scoring rules for judgment aggregation , 2014, Soc. Choice Welf..

[4]  C. List,et al.  Judgment aggregation: A survey , 2009 .

[5]  Gabriella Pigozzi,et al.  Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation , 2006, Synthese.

[6]  Gabriella Pigozzi,et al.  Judgment aggregation rules based on minimization , 2011, TARK XIII.

[7]  Philippe Mongin,et al.  The premiss-based approach to judgment aggregation , 2010, J. Econ. Theory.

[8]  Ulrich Endriss.  Judgment Aggregation , 2016, Handbook of Computational Social Choice.

[9]  Edith Hemaspaandra,et al.  The complexity of Kemeny elections , 2005, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[10]  Marija Slavkovik.  Not all Judgment Aggregation Should be Neutral , 2014, ECSI.

[11]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Handbook of Computational Social Choice , 2016 .

[12]  Ulrich Endriss,et al.  Binary Aggregation by Selection of the Most Representative Voters , 2014, AAAI.

[13]  H. P. Young,et al.  An axiomatization of Borda's rule , 1974 .

[14]  Klaus W. Wagner,et al.  Bounded Query Classes , 1990, SIAM J. Comput..

[15]  K. Arrow,et al.  Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare , 2011 .

[16]  Daniel N. Osherson,et al.  Methods for distance-based judgment aggregation , 2009, Soc. Choice Welf..

[17]  Ulrich Endriss,et al.  Complexity of Judgment Aggregation , 2012, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[18]  Umberto Grandi,et al.  Binary Aggregation with Integrity Constraints , 2011, IJCAI.

[19]  Yue Lu,et al.  Latent aspect rating analysis on review text data: a rating regression approach , 2010, KDD.

[20]  Gabriella Pigozzi,et al.  Judgment Aggregation: A Primer , 2014, Judgment Aggregation.

[21]  C. List,et al.  Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result , 2002, Economics and Philosophy.

[22]  Christian List,et al.  Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation , 2005, Soc. Choice Welf..

[23]  Jerry S. Kelly,et al.  The Ostrogorski paradox , 1989 .

[24]  F. Dietrich,et al.  Judgment Aggregation By Quota Rules , 2007 .

[25]  Ton Storcken,et al.  Measuring polarization in preferences , 2015, Math. Soc. Sci..

[26]  Marija Slavkovik,et al.  Judgment Aggregation Rules and Voting Rules , 2013, ADT.

[27]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Modal Ranking: A Uniquely Robust Voting Rule , 2014, AAAI.

[28]  Lawrence G. Sager,et al.  The One and the Many: Adjudication in Collegial Courts , 1993 .

[29]  H. Young,et al.  A Consistent Extension of Condorcet’s Election Principle , 1978 .

[30]  Stephan Hartmann,et al.  Judgment aggregation and the problem of tracking the truth , 2011, Synthese.