Judgment Aggregation

Judgment Aggregation is concerned with merging individual opinions on a set of propositions (an agenda) into a collective belief on these. The theory has emerged around the famous ‘Doctrinal Paradox’, which notes that proposition-wise majorities can result in an inconsistent set of (collective) judgments. When judgments correspond to pairwise preference statements, the ‘Doctrinal Paradox’ reduces to the ‘Condorcet Paradox’ (a classic in Social Choice Theory): A set of alternatives cannot be consistently ranked through majority voting on all pairs of alternatives as this might produce cyclic (collective) preferences.

Prof. Dr. Clemens Puppe: clemens.puppe∂kit.edu
Michael Müller: michael.mueller∂kit.edu
Claudio Kretz: claudio.kretz∂kit.edu