20 found
Order:
  1. Reliable Methods of Judgment Aggregation.Stephan Hartmann, Gabriella Pigozzi & Jan Sprenger - 2010 - 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 (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  2. Belief Merging and the Discursive Dilemma: An Argument-Based Account to Paradoxes of Judgment Aggregation.Gabriella Pigozzi - 2006 - 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 (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  3. Interview with John Woods.Gabriella Pigozzi - 2009 - The Reasoner 3 (3):1-4.
  4.  57
    Two Aggregation Paradoxes in Social Decision Making: The Ostrogorski Paradox and the Discursive Dilemma.Gabriella Pigozzi - 2005 - 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 (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  5.  2
    The Role of Goals in Belief Selection.Guido Boella, Célia da Costa Pereira, Gabriella Pigozzi, Andrea Tettamanzi & Leendert van der Torre - 2010 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 18 (4):559-578.
    In this paper we consider the relation between beliefs and goals in agent theory. Beliefs play three roles in reasoning about goals: they play a role in the generation of unconditional desires from conditional ones, they play a role in adoption of desires as goals, and they play a role in the selection of plans to achieve goals. In this paper we consider the role of goals in reasoning about beliefs. Though we assume that goals do not play a role (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  6.  18
    Premise Independence in Judgment Aggregation.Gabriella Pigozzi & L. van der Torre - manuscript
    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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  7.  48
    Collective Decision-Making Without Paradoxes: A Fusion Approach.Gabriella Pigozzi - unknown
    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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  8.  75
    Ten Philosophical Problems in Deontic Logic.Gabriella Pigozzi, J. Hansen & Leon van der Torre - manuscript
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  18
    The Logic of Group Decisions: Judgment Aggregation.Gabriella Pigozzi - forthcoming - Journal of Philosophical Logic:1-15.
    Judgment aggregation studies how individual opinions on a given set of propositions can be aggregated to form a consistent group judgment on the same propositions. Despite the simplicity of the problem, seemingly natural aggregation procedures fail to return consistent collective outcomes, leading to what is now known as the doctrinal paradox. The first occurrences of the paradox were discovered in the legal realm. However, the interest of judgment aggregation is much broader and extends to political philosophy, epistemology, social choice theory, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  14
    Aggregation Problems and Models: What Comes First?Gabriella Pigozzi - 2010 - In F. Stadler, D. Dieks, W. Gonzales, S. Hartmann, T. Uebel & M. Weber (eds.), The Present Situation in the Philosophy of Science. Springer. pp. 141--152.
  11.  22
    Collective Decision-Making Without Paradoxes: An Argument-Based Account.Gabriella Pigozzi - forthcoming - Synthese.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  49
    Belief Merging, Judgment Aggregation and Some Links with Social Choice Theory.Gabriella Pigozzi - manuscript
    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 it may however give a different outcome than majority voting applied to another set of propositions. Starting from this so-called doctrinal paradox, the paper surveys the literature on judgment aggregation, and shows that the application (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  36
    On the Notion of Admissibility in Chance-Credence Principles: A Comment on Vranas.Gabriella Pigozzi - manuscript
    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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  33
    Merging Judgments and the Problem of Truth-Tracking.Stephan Hartmann & Gabriella Pigozzi - 2006 - 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  30
    Choosing Your Beliefs.Gabriella Pigozzi, G. Boella, C. Costa Pereirdaa, A. Tettamanzi & and Leon van der Torre - manuscript
    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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  22
    Unanimity Consistency in Model-Based Belief Merging.Gabriella Pigozzi - manuscript
    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.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  1
    AGM Contraction and Revision of Rules.Guido Boella, Gabriella Pigozzi & Leendert van der Torre - 2016 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 25 (3-4):273-297.
    In this paper we study AGM contraction and revision of rules using input/output logical theories. We replace propositional formulas in the AGM framework of theory change by pairs of propositional formulas, representing the rule based character of theories, and we replace the classical consequence operator Cn by an input/output logic. The results in this paper suggest that, in general, results from belief base dynamics can be transferred to rule base dynamics, but that a similar transfer of AGM theory change to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  14
    Controlled Revision - an Algorithmic Approach for Belief Revision.Gabriella Pigozzi - manuscript
    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 (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  1
    Normative Multiagent Systems: Guest Editors’ Introduction.Guido Boella, Gabriella Pigozzi & Munindar Singh - 2010 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 18 (1):1-3.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. Aggregation in Multi-Agent Systems and the Problem of Truth-Tracking.Stephan Hartmann & Gabriella Pigozzi - 2007 - In AAMAS 07 (ed.), Proceedings of The Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography