A general method for deciding about logically constrained issues

Rosa Camps, Xavier Mora, Laia Saumell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)


A general method is given for revising degrees of belief and arriving at consistent decisions about a system of logically constrained issues. In contrast to other works about belief revision, here the constraints are assumed to be fixed. The method has two variants, dual of each other, whose revised degrees of belief are respectively above and below the original ones. The upper [resp. lower] revised degrees of belief are uniquely characterized as the lowest [resp. greatest] ones that are invariant by a certain max-min [resp. min-max] operation determined by the logical constraints. In both variants, making balance between the revised degree of belief of a proposition and that of its negation leads to decisions that are ensured to be consistent with the logical constraints. These decisions are ensured to agree with the majority criterion as applied to the original degrees of belief whenever this gives a consistent result. They are also ensured to satisfy a property of respect for unanimity about any particular issue, as well as a property of monotonicity with respect to the original degrees of belief. The application of the method to certain special domains comes down to well established or increasingly accepted methods, such as the single-link method of cluster analysis and the method of paths in preferential voting. © 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)39-72
JournalAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2012


  • Artificial intelligence
  • Belief revision
  • Cluster analysis
  • Conjunctive normal forms
  • Constrained judgment aggregation
  • Decision theory
  • Degrees of belief
  • Doctrinal paradox
  • Plausible reasoning
  • Preferential voting


Dive into the research topics of 'A general method for deciding about logically constrained issues'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this