16 found
Sort by:
  1. Gabriella Pigozzi, Belief Merging, Judgment Aggregation and Some Links with Social Choice Theory.
    In this paper we explore the relation between three areas: judgment aggregation, belief merging and social choice theory. Judgment aggregation studies how to aggregate individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective decision on the same propositions. When majority voting is applied to some propositions (the premises) it may however give a different outcome than majority voting applied to another set of propositions (the conclusion). Starting from this so-called doctrinal paradox, the paper surveys the literature on judgment aggregation (and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Gabriella Pigozzi, Controlled Revision - an Algorithmic Approach for Belief Revision.
    This paper provides algorithmic options for belief revision of a database receiving an infinite stream of inputs. At stage , the database is ¡£¢ , receiving the input ¤ ¢ . The revision algorithms for moving to the new database ¡ ¢¦¥¨§© ¡ ¢ ¤ ¢ take into account the history of previous revisions actually executed as well as possible revision options which were discarded at the time but may now be pursued. The appropriate methodology for carrying this out is (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Gabriella Pigozzi, On the Notion of Admissibility in Chance-Credence Principles: A Comment on Vranas.
    Lewis’ Principal Principle (PP) aims at clarifying the connection between chance (i.e. objective probability) and credence (i.e. subjective probability). It is generally assumed that the chance that an event will occur does not depend on our credence in the occurrence of that event. Nevertheless, chances constrain our credence, and Lewis’ PP is an attempt to capture this connection.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Gabriella Pigozzi, Unanimity Consistency in Model-Based Belief Merging.
    The problem of the aggregation of inputs coming from different sources arises in several contexts. Examples are the combination of individual preferences (studied in social choice theory), opinions (judgment aggregation), and data (artificial intelligence). While a number of results are available in each of these disciplines, a question that has been addressed only recently is how similar these aggregation problems are, despite the different types of inputs they try to combine.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Gabriella Pigozzi, G. Boella, C. Costa Pereirdaa, A. Tettamanzi & and Leon van der Torre, Choosing Your Beliefs.
    This paper presents and discusses a novel approach to indeterministic belief revision. An indeterministic belief revision operator assumes that, when an agent is confronted with a new piece of information, it can revise its belief sets in more than one way. We define a rational agent not only in terms of what it believes but also of what it desires and wants to achieve. Hence, we propose that the agent’s goals play a role in the choice of (possibly) one of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Gabriella Pigozzi, J. Hansen & Leon van der Torre, Ten Philosophical Problems in Deontic Logic.
    The paper discusses ten philosophical problems in deontic logic: how to formally represent norms, when a set of norms may be termed ‘coherent’, how to deal with normative conflicts, how contraryto-duty obligations can be appropriately modeled, how dyadic deontic operators may be redefined to relate to sets of norms instead of preference relations between possible worlds, how various concepts of permission can be accommodated, how meaning postulates and counts-as conditionals can be taken into account, and how sets of norms may (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Gabriella Pigozzi & L. van der Torre, Premise Independence in Judgment Aggregation.
    ment on the same propositions, and is plagued by impossibility re- 2. What is the role of independence in judgment aggregation sults. In this paper we study the central notion of independence in..
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Gabriella Pigozzi (forthcoming). Collective Decision-Making Without Paradoxes: An Argument-Based Account. Synthese.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Stephan Hartmann, Gabriella Pigozzi & Jan Sprenger (2010). Reliable Methods of Judgment Aggregation. Journal for Logic and Computation 20:603--617.
    The aggregation of consistent individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective judgment on the same propositions has recently drawn much attention. Seemingly reasonable aggregation procedures, such as propositionwise majority voting, cannot ensure an equally consistent collective conclusion. The literature on judgment aggregation refers to such a problem as the \textit{discursive dilemma}. In this paper we assume that the decision which the group is trying to reach is factually right or wrong. Hence, we address the question of how good (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Gabriella Pigozzi (2010). Aggregation Problems and Models: What Comes First?. In. In F. Stadler, D. Dieks, W. Gonzales, S. Hartmann, T. Uebel & M. Weber (eds.), The Present Situation in the Philosophy of Science. Springer. 141--152.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Gabriella Pigozzi (2009). Interview with John Woods. The Reasoner 3 (3):1-4.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Stephan Hartmann & Gabriella Pigozzi (2007). Aggregation in Multi-Agent Systems and the Problem of Truth-Tracking. In AAMAS 07 (ed.), Proceedings of The Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Stephan Hartmann & Gabriella Pigozzi (2006). Merging Judgments and the Problem of Truth-Tracking. In Jerome Lang & Ulle Endriss (eds.), Computational Social Choice 2006. University of Amsterdam.
    The problem of the aggregation of consistent individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective judgment on the same propositions has recently drawn much attention. The dificulty lies in the fact that a seemingly reasonable aggregation procedure, such as propositionwise majority voting, cannot ensure an equally consistent collective outcome. The literature on judgment aggregation refers to such dilemmas as the discursive paradox. So far, three procedures have been proposed to overcome the paradox: the premise-based and conclusion-based procedures on the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Gabriella Pigozzi (2006). Belief Merging and the Discursive Dilemma: An Argument-Based Account to Paradoxes of Judgment Aggregation. [REVIEW] Synthese 152 (2):285 - 298.
    The aggregation of individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective decision on the same propositions is called judgment aggregation. Literature in social choice and political theory has claimed that judgment aggregation raises serious concerns. For example, consider a set of premises and a conclusion where the latter is logically equivalent to the former. When majority voting is applied to some propositions (the premises) it may give a different outcome than majority voting applied to another set of propositions (the (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Gabriella Pigozzi, Collective Decision-Making Without Paradoxes: A Fusion Approach.
    The combination of individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective decision on the same propositions is called judgment aggregation. Literature in social choice and political theory has claimed that judgment aggregation raises serious concerns. For example, consider a set of premises and a conclusion in which the latter is logically equivalent to the former. When majority voting is applied to some propositions (the premises) it may give a different outcome than majority voting applied to another set of propositions (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Gabriella Pigozzi (2005). Two Aggregation Paradoxes in Social Decision Making: The Ostrogorski Paradox and the Discursive Dilemma. Episteme 2 (2):119-128.
    The Ostrogorski paradox and the discursive dilemma are seemingly unrelated paradoxes of aggregation. The former is discussed in traditional social choice theory, while the latter is at the core of the new literature on judgment aggregation. Both paradoxes arise when, in a group, each individual consistently makes a judgment, or expresses a preference, (in the form of yes or no) over specific propositions, and the collective outcome is in some respect inconsistent. While the result is logically inconsistent in the case (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation