Egalitarian Judgment Aggregation
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.02785v1
- Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 18:07:31 GMT
- Title: Egalitarian Judgment Aggregation
- Authors: Sirin Botan and Ronald de Haan and Marija Slavkovik and Zoi
Terzopoulou
- Abstract summary: Egalitarian considerations play a central role in many areas of social choice theory.
We introduce axioms capturing two classical interpretations of egalitarianism in judgment aggregation.
We then explore the relationship between these axioms and several notions of strategyproofness from social choice theory.
- Score: 10.42629447317569
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Egalitarian considerations play a central role in many areas of social choice
theory. Applications of egalitarian principles range from ensuring everyone
gets an equal share of a cake when deciding how to divide it, to guaranteeing
balance with respect to gender or ethnicity in committee elections. Yet, the
egalitarian approach has received little attention in judgment aggregation -- a
powerful framework for aggregating logically interconnected issues. We make the
first steps towards filling that gap. We introduce axioms capturing two
classical interpretations of egalitarianism in judgment aggregation and situate
these within the context of existing axioms in the pertinent framework of
belief merging. We then explore the relationship between these axioms and
several notions of strategyproofness from social choice theory at large.
Finally, a novel egalitarian judgment aggregation rule stems from our analysis;
we present complexity results concerning both outcome determination and
strategic manipulation for that rule.
Related papers
- A Note on an Inferentialist Approach to Resource Semantics [48.65926948745294]
'Inferentialism' is the view that meaning is given in terms of inferential behaviour.
This paper shows how 'inferentialism' enables a versatile and expressive framework for resource semantics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-10T14:13:21Z) - A Semantic Approach to Decidability in Epistemic Planning (Extended
Version) [72.77805489645604]
We use a novel semantic approach to achieve decidability.
Specifically, we augment the logic of knowledge S5$_n$ and with an interaction axiom called (knowledge) commutativity.
We prove that our framework admits a finitary non-fixpoint characterization of common knowledge, which is of independent interest.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-28T11:26:26Z) - Moral Machine or Tyranny of the Majority? [25.342029326793917]
In Moral Machine project, researchers crowdsourced answers to "Trolley Problems" concerning autonomous vehicles.
Noothigattu et al. proposed inferring linear functions that approximate each individual's preferences and aggregating these linear models by averaging parameters across the population.
In this paper, we examine this averaging mechanism, focusing on fairness concerns in the presence of strategic effects.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-27T00:49:11Z) - Factoring the Matrix of Domination: A Critical Review and Reimagination
of Intersectionality in AI Fairness [55.037030060643126]
Intersectionality is a critical framework that allows us to examine how social inequalities persist.
We argue that adopting intersectionality as an analytical framework is pivotal to effectively operationalizing fairness.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-16T21:02:09Z) - Unifying different notions of quantum incompatibility into a strict
hierarchy of resource theories of communication [60.18814584837969]
We introduce the notion of q-compatibility, which unifies different notions of POVMs, channels, and instruments incompatibility.
We are able to pinpoint exactly what each notion of incompatibility consists of, in terms of information-theoretic resources.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-16T21:33:31Z) - Characterization of Group-Fair Social Choice Rules under Single-Peaked
Preferences [0.5161531917413706]
We study fairness in social choice settings under single-peaked preferences.
We provide two separate characterizations of random social choice rules that satisfy group-fairness.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-07-16T17:12:54Z) - Towards Substantive Conceptions of Algorithmic Fairness: Normative
Guidance from Equal Opportunity Doctrines [6.751310968561177]
We use Equal Oppportunity doctrines from political philosophy to make explicit the normative judgements embedded in different conceptions of algorithmic fairness.
We use this taxonomy to provide a moral interpretation of the impossibility results as the incompatibility between different conceptions of a fair contest.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-07-06T18:37:37Z) - Strategyproof and Proportionally Fair Facility Location [77.16035689756859]
We focus on a simple, one-dimensional collective decision problem (often referred to as the facility location problem)
We analyze a hierarchy of proportionality-based fairness axioms of varying strength.
For each axiom, we characterize the family of mechanisms that satisfy the axiom and strategyproofness.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-11-02T12:41:32Z) - Fairness Through Counterfactual Utilities [0.0]
Group fairness definitions such as Demographic Parity and Equal Opportunity make assumptions about the underlying decision-problem that restrict them to classification problems.
We provide a generalized set of group fairness definitions that unambiguously extend to all machine learning environments.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-08-11T16:51:27Z) - MCMH: Learning Multi-Chain Multi-Hop Rules for Knowledge Graph Reasoning [46.68583750992613]
We consider a generalized form of multi-hop rules, where each rule is a set of relation chains.
We propose a two-step approach that first selects a small set of relation chains as a rule and then evaluates the confidence of the target relationship.
Empirical results show that our multi-chain multi-hop (MCMH) rules result in superior results compared to the standard single-chain approaches.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-05T01:32:20Z) - The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness [6.6697126372463345]
We argue that the equitable design of algorithms requires grappling with their context-specific consequences.
We offer strategies to ensure algorithms are better aligned with policy goals.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2018-07-31T18:38:04Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.