Probabilistic opinion pooling generalized. Part two: the premise-based approach
Tóm tắt
How can several individuals’ probability functions on a given
$$\sigma $$
-algebra of events be aggregated into a collective probability function? Classic approaches to this problem usually require ‘event-wise independence’: the collective probability for each event should depend only on the individuals’ probabilities for that event. In practice, however, some events may be ‘basic’ and others ‘derivative’, so that it makes sense first to aggregate the probabilities for the former and then to let these constrain the probabilities for the latter. We formalize this idea by introducing a ‘premise-based’ approach to probabilistic opinion pooling, and show that, under a variety of assumptions, it leads to linear or neutral opinion pooling on the ‘premises’.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Aczél J, Wagner C (1980) A characterization of weighted arithmetic means. SIAM J Algebra Discr Methods 1(3):259–260
Aczél J, Ng CT, Wagner C (1984) Aggregation theorems for allocation problems. SIAM J Algebra Discr Methods 5(1):1–8
Chambers C (2007) An ordinal characterization of the linear opinion pool. Econ Theor 33(3):457–474
Clemen RT, Winkler RL (1999) Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Anal 19(2):187–203
Dietrich F (2006) Judgment aggregation: (im)possibility theorems. J Econ Theory 126(1):286–298
Dietrich F (2010) Bayesian group belief. Soc Choice Welf 35(4):595–626
Dietrich F (2016) A theory of Bayesian groups. Working paper
Dietrich F, List C (2007) Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation. Soc Choice Welf 29(1):19–33
Dietrich F, List C (2016) Probabilistic opinion pooling. In: Hitchcock C, Hajek A (eds), Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dietrich F, List C (2017) Probabilistic opinion pooling generalized. Part one: general agendas. Soc Choice Welf. doi:10.1007/s00355-017-1034-z (this issue)
Dietrich F, Mongin P (2010) The premise-based approach to judgment aggregation. J Econ Theory 145(2):562–582
Genest C (1984a) Pooling operators with the marginalization property. Can J Stat 12(2):153–163
Genest C (1984b) A characterization theorem for externally Bayesian groups. Ann Stat 12(3):1100–1105
Genest C, McConway KJ, Schervish MJ (1986) Characterization of externally Bayesian pooling operators. Ann Stat 14(2):487–501
Genest C, Zidek JV (1986) Combining probability distributions: a critique and annotated bibliography. Stat Sci 1(1):114–135
Kornhauser LA, Sager LG (1986) Unpacking the Court. Yale Law J 96(1):82–117
List C, Pettit P (2002) Aggregating sets of judgments: an impossibility result. Econ Philos 18(1):89–110
List C (2006) The discursive dilemma and public reason. Ethics 116(2):362–402
McConway KJ (1978) The combination of experts’ opinions in probability assessments: some theoretical considerations. Ph.D. thesis, University College London
McConway KJ (1981) Marginalization and linear opinion pools. J Am Stat Assoc 76(374):410–414
Mongin P (1995) Consistent Bayesian aggregation. J Econ Theory 66:313–351
Mongin P (2005) Spurious unanimity and the Pareto principle. LSE Choice Group working paper series, London School of Economics
Mongin P (2008) Factoring out the impossibility of logical aggregation. J Econ Theory 141(1):100–113
Morris PA (1974) Decision analysis expert use. Manag Sci 20:1233–1241
Nehring K, Puppe C (2010) Abstract arrovian aggregation. J Econ Theory 145(2):467–494
Pettit P (2001) Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philos Issue 11:268–299
Priest G (2001) An introduction to non-classical logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Russell JS, Hawthorne J, Buchak L (2015) Groupthink. Philos Stud 172(5):1287–1309
Stone M (1961) The opinion pool. Ann Math Stat 32(4):1339–1342
Wagner C (1982) Allocation, Lehrer models, and the consensus of probabilities. Theor Decis 14(2):207–220
Wagner C (1985) On the formal properties of weighted averaging as a method of aggregation. Synthese 62(1):97–108
Weymark J (1997) Aggregating ordinal probabilities on finite sets. J Econ Theory 75(2):407–432