Measuring Dissimilarity between Judgment Sets

  • Marija Slavkovik
  • Thomas Ågotnes
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8761)


Distances and scores are widely used to measure (dis)similarity between objects of information such as preferences, belief sets, judgment sets, etc. Typically, measures are directly imported from information theory or topology, with little consideration for adequacy in the context of comparing logically related information. We propose a set of desirable properties for measures used to aggregate (logically related) judgments, and show which of the measures used for this purpose satisfy them.


Social Choice Multiagent System Logic Relation Dissimilarity Measure Judgment Aggregation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baumeister, D., Erdélyi, G., Erdélyi, O.J., Rothe, J.: Computational aspects of manipulation and control in judgment aggregation. In: Perny, P., Pirlot, M., Tsoukiàs, A. (eds.) ADT 2013. LNCS, vol. 8176, pp. 71–85. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Booth, R., Caminada, M., Podlaszewski, M., Rahwan, I.: Quantifying disagreement in argument-based reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2012, Richland, SC, pp. 493–500. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brandt, F., Conitzer, V., Endriss, U.: Computational social choice. In: Weiss, G. (ed.) Multiagent Systems, pp. 213–283. MIT Press (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caminada, M., Pigozzi, G.: On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 22(1), 64–102 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deza, M.M., Deza, E.: Encyclopedia of Distances. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dietrich, F.: Scoring rules for judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare, 1–39 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duddy, C., Piggins, A.: A measure of distance between judgment sets. Social Choice and Welfare 39(4), 855–867 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Endriss, U., Grandi, U., Porello, D.: Complexity of judgment aggregation. Journal Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 45, 481–514 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Everaere, P., Konieczny, S., Marquis, P.: The strategy-proofness landscape of merging. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 28, 49–105 (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamming, R.W.: Error detecting and error correcting codes. Bell System Technical Journal 29(2), 147–160 (1950)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Konieczny, S., Pino-Pérez, R.: Logic based merging. Journal of Philosophical Logic 40(2), 239–270 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lafage, C., Lang, J.: Propositional distances and compact preference representation. European Journal of Operational Research 160(3), 741–761 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lang, J., Slavkovik, M.: Judgment aggregation rules and voting rules. In: Perny, P., Pirlot, M., Tsoukiàs, A. (eds.) ADT 2013. LNCS, vol. 8176, pp. 230–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lang, J., Slavkovik, M., Vesic, S.: A weakening of independence in judgment aggregation: agenda separability (extended abstract). In: Schaub, T. (ed.) Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, page forthcoming (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    List, C., Puppe, C.: Judgment aggregation: A survey. In: Anand, P., Puppe, C., Pattanaik, P. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Rational and Social Choice. Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller, M.K., Osherson, D.: Methods for distance-based judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 32(4), 575–601 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pigozzi, G.: Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation. Synthese 152(2), 285–298 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Slavkovik, M., Agotnes, T.: A judgment set similarity measure based on prime implicants. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS, page forthcoming (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Slavkovik, M., Jamroga, W.: Distance-based rules for weighted judgment aggregation (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of AAMAS, pp. 1405–1406 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marija Slavkovik
    • 1
  • Thomas Ågotnes
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations