Aggregating incoherent agents who disagree

Richard Pettigrew

doi:10.1007/s11229-017-1613-7

Aggregating incoherent agents who disagree

Richard Pettigrew^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Department of Philosophy

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article (Academic Journal) › peer-review

290 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In this paper, we explore how we should aggregate the degrees of belief of a group of agents to give a single coherent set of degrees of belief, when at least some of those agents might be probabilistically incoherent. There are a number of ways of aggregating degrees of belief, and there are a number of ways of fixing incoherent degrees of belief. When we have picked one of each, should we aggregate first and then fix, or fix first and then aggregate? Or should we try to do both at once? And when do these different procedures agree with one another? In this paper, we focus particularly on the final question.

Original language	English
Number of pages	40
Journal	Synthese
Early online date	16 Nov 2017
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1613-7
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 16 Nov 2017

Structured keywords

Centre for Science and Philosophy

Keywords

Accuracy
Bayesian Epistemology
Judgment aggregation
Probabilistic Opinion Pooling

Access to Document

10.1007/s11229-017-1613-7

Full-text PDF (final published version)
This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Springer at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-017-1613-7 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Final published version, 667 KBLicence: CC BY

Link to publication in Scopus

Embargoed Document

Full-text PDF (accepted author manuscript)
Accepted author manuscript, 252 KB
Request copy

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Aggregating incoherent agents who disagree'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

@article{d2ad9cadb198483c91f27dac9ddac69d,

title = "Aggregating incoherent agents who disagree",

abstract = "In this paper, we explore how we should aggregate the degrees of belief of a group of agents to give a single coherent set of degrees of belief, when at least some of those agents might be probabilistically incoherent. There are a number of ways of aggregating degrees of belief, and there are a number of ways of fixing incoherent degrees of belief. When we have picked one of each, should we aggregate first and then fix, or fix first and then aggregate? Or should we try to do both at once? And when do these different procedures agree with one another? In this paper, we focus particularly on the final question.",

keywords = "Accuracy, Bayesian Epistemology, Judgment aggregation, Probabilistic Opinion Pooling",

author = "Richard Pettigrew",

year = "2017",

month = nov,

day = "16",

doi = "10.1007/s11229-017-1613-7",

language = "English",

journal = "Synthese",

issn = "0039-7857",

publisher = "Springer Verlag",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Aggregating incoherent agents who disagree

AU - Pettigrew, Richard

PY - 2017/11/16

Y1 - 2017/11/16

N2 - In this paper, we explore how we should aggregate the degrees of belief of a group of agents to give a single coherent set of degrees of belief, when at least some of those agents might be probabilistically incoherent. There are a number of ways of aggregating degrees of belief, and there are a number of ways of fixing incoherent degrees of belief. When we have picked one of each, should we aggregate first and then fix, or fix first and then aggregate? Or should we try to do both at once? And when do these different procedures agree with one another? In this paper, we focus particularly on the final question.

AB - In this paper, we explore how we should aggregate the degrees of belief of a group of agents to give a single coherent set of degrees of belief, when at least some of those agents might be probabilistically incoherent. There are a number of ways of aggregating degrees of belief, and there are a number of ways of fixing incoherent degrees of belief. When we have picked one of each, should we aggregate first and then fix, or fix first and then aggregate? Or should we try to do both at once? And when do these different procedures agree with one another? In this paper, we focus particularly on the final question.

KW - Accuracy

KW - Bayesian Epistemology

KW - Judgment aggregation

KW - Probabilistic Opinion Pooling

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034239500&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11229-017-1613-7

DO - 10.1007/s11229-017-1613-7

M3 - Article (Academic Journal)

AN - SCOPUS:85034239500

JO - Synthese

JF - Synthese

SN - 0039-7857

ER -