Egalitarian Judgment Aggregation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.02785v1
• Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 18:07:31 GMT
• Title: Egalitarian Judgment Aggregation
• 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 game theory for foundation models shows new paths to rational cooperation through similarity inference [56.53805518668248]
  We show that foundation model agents engaging in optimal planning consistently converge to stable cooperation.<n>By shifting from decoupled to embedded agency, these agents model themselves as part of the universe they inhabit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T17:24:33Z)
• To Compare, or Not to Compare: On Methodological Practices in Evaluating Social Bias [61.40435736418359]
  We introduce a unified framework that standardizes heterogeneous benchmarks to contrast isolated demographic assessments with forced-choice comparative settings.<n>We show that comparative settings act as aggressive catalysts for latent discrimination, a shift primarily driven by underspecified contexts.<n>Finally, we demonstrate that this comparative prejudice is a generalized phenomenon that scales positively with model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T13:53:50Z)
• Beyond Rational Illusion: Behaviorally Realistic Strategic Classification [56.458581740660236]
  We propose the Prospect-Guided Strategic Framework (Pro-SF) to address the behaviorally realistic strategic classification problem.<n>Pro-SF is a principled framework grounded in prospect theory to model and learn under behaviorally realistic strategic responses.<n> Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets establish Pro-SF as a behaviorally grounded approach to strategic classification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T11:04:55Z)
• A Feminist Account of Intersectional Algorithmic Fairness [0.0]
  We propose Substantive Intersectional Algorithmic Fairness, extending Green's notion of substantive algorithmic fairness with insights from intersectional feminist theory.<n>We introduce ten desiderata within the ROOF methodology to guide the design, assessment, and deployment of algorithmic systems.<n>By bridging computational and social science perspectives, we provide actionable guidance for more equitable, inclusive, and context-sensitive intersectional algorithmic practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-25T12:09:04Z)
• RLJP: Legal Judgment Prediction via First-Order Logic Rule-enhanced with Large Language Models [58.69183479148083]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is a pivotal task in legal AI.<n>Existing LJP models integrate judicial precedents and legal knowledge for high performance.<n>But they neglect legal reasoning logic, a critical component of legal judgments requiring rigorous logical analysis.<n>This paper proposes a rule-enhanced legal judgment prediction framework based on first-order logic (FOL) formalism and comparative learning (CL)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T14:50:21Z)
• Policy Aggregation [21.21314301021803]
  We consider the challenge of AI value alignment with multiple individuals with different reward functions and optimal policies in an underlying Markov decision process. We formalize this problem as one of policy aggregation, where the goal is to identify a desirable collective policy. Key insight is that social choice methods can be reinterpreted by identifying ordinal preferences with volumes of subsets of the state-action occupancy polytope.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T04:19:50Z)
• Intuitions of Compromise: Utilitarianism vs. Contractualism [42.3322948655612]
  We use a paradigm that applies algorithms to aggregating preferences across groups in a social decision-making context. While the dominant approach to value aggregation up to now has been utilitarian, we find that people strongly prefer the aggregations recommended by the contractualist algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T21:05:57Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.