[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ebg/heccah/1116.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Theorem on Aggregating Classifications

Author

Listed:
  • Mongin, Philippe
  • Maniquet, Francois
Abstract
Suppose that a group of individuals must classify objects into three or more categories, and does so by aggregating the individual classifications. We show that if the classifications, both individual and collective, are required to put at least one object in each category, then no aggregation rule can satisfy a unanimity and an independence condition without being dictatorial. This impossibility theorem extends a result that Kasher and Rubinstein (1997) proved for two categories and complements another that Dokow and Holzman (2010) obtained for three or more categories under the condition that classifications put at most one object in each category. The paper discusses an interpretation of its result both in terms of Kasher and Rubinstein's group identification problem and in terms of Dokow and Holzman's task assignment problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Mongin, Philippe & Maniquet, Francois, 2015. "A Theorem on Aggregating Classifications," HEC Research Papers Series 1116, HEC Paris.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebg:heccah:1116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2686037
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philippe Mongin & Franz Dietrich, 2010. "Un bilan interprétatif de la théorie de l'agrégation logique," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 120(6), pages 929-972.
    2. Philippe Mongin, 2012. "The doctrinal paradox, the discursive dilemma, and logical aggregation theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 315-355, September.
    3. Samet, Dov & Schmeidler, David, 2003. "Between liberalism and democracy," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 213-233, June.
    4. MANIQUET, François & MONGIN, Philippe, 2014. "Judgment aggregation theory can entail new social choice results," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014054, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    5. Miller, Alan D., 2008. "Group identification," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 188-202, May.
    6. Dimitrov, Dinko & Sung, Shao Chin & Xu, Yongsheng, 2007. "Procedural group identification," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 137-146, September.
    7. Rubinstein, Ariel & Fishburn, Peter C., 1986. "Algebraic aggregation theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 63-77, February.
    8. Dinko Dimitrov & Thierry Marchant & Debasis Mishra, 2012. "Separability and aggregation of equivalence relations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(1), pages 191-212, September.
    9. Christopher Chambers & Alan Miller, 2011. "Rules for aggregating information," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 36(1), pages 75-82, January.
    10. Dokow, Elad & Holzman, Ron, 2010. "Aggregation of binary evaluations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 495-511, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Justin Kruger & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "An Arrovian impossibility in combining ranking and evaluation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(3), pages 535-555, October.
    2. Jansen, C. & Schollmeyer, G. & Augustin, T., 2018. "A probabilistic evaluation framework for preference aggregation reflecting group homogeneity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 49-62.
    3. Ozkes, Ali I. & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2023. "Uniform random dictatorship: A characterization without strategy-proofness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    4. Jean Baccelli & Marcus Pivato, 2021. "Philippe Mongin (1950–2020)," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(1), pages 1-9, February.
    5. Cailloux, Olivier & Hervouin, Matthieu & Ozkes, Ali I. & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2024. "Classification aggregation without unanimity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 6-9.
    6. Marc Fleurbaey, 2020. "Philippe Mongin 1950–2020," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(3), pages 399-403, October.
    7. Craven, John, 2024. "Aggregation of ranked categories," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 27-33.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cho, Wonki Jo & Ju, Biung-Ghi, 2017. "Multinary group identification," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(2), May.
    2. Dinko Dimitrov & Thierry Marchant & Debasis Mishra, 2012. "Separability and aggregation of equivalence relations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(1), pages 191-212, September.
    3. Cho, Wonki Jo & Park, Chang Woo, 2018. "Fractional group identification," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 66-75.
    4. Miller, Alan D., 2013. "Community standards," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(6), pages 2696-2705.
    5. Balázs Sziklai, 2018. "How to identify experts in a community?," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(1), pages 155-173, March.
    6. Chambers, Christopher P. & Miller, Alan D., 2014. "Scholarly influence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 571-583.
    7. Murat Çengelci & M. Sanver, 2010. "Simple Collective Identity Functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(4), pages 417-443, April.
    8. Dimitrov, Dinko & Puppe, Clemens, 2011. "Non-bossy social classification," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 162-165.
    9. Biung-Ghi Ju, 2010. "Individual powers and social consent: an axiomatic approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(4), pages 571-596, April.
    10. Philippe Mongin, 2012. "Une source méconnue de la théorie de l'agrégation des jugements," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 63(4), pages 645-657.
    11. John Craven, 2023. "Self-designation and group allocation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 121-133, January.
    12. Cho, Wonki Jo, 2018. "Fairness in group identification," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 35-40.
    13. José Carlos R. Alcantud & Annick Laruelle, 2020. "Independent collective identity functions as voting rules," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 107-119, July.
    14. Biung-Ghi Ju, 2013. "On the characterization of liberalism by Samet and Schmeidler," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 359-366, February.
    15. Alcantud, José Carlos R. & Laruelle, Annick, 2018. "Collective identity functions with status quo," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 159-166.
    16. Chambers, Christopher P. & Miller, Alan D., 2018. "Benchmarking," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(2), May.
    17. List, Christian & Polak, Ben, 2010. "Introduction to judgment aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 441-466, March.
    18. Alejandro Saporiti, 2012. "A Proof for 'Who is a J' Impossibility Theorem," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(1), pages 494-501.
    19. Nehring, Klaus & Pivato, Marcus & Puppe, Clemens, 2014. "The Condorcet set: Majority voting over interconnected propositions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 268-303.
    20. Mishra, Debasis & Roy, Souvik, 2012. "Strategy-proof partitioning," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 285-300.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Aggregation of classifications; Group identification problem; Task assignment problem; Nonbinary evaluations;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C65 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Miscellaneous Mathematical Tools
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebg:heccah:1116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Antoine Haldemann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hecpafr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.