Journal of Mathematical Sciences

, Volume 244, Issue 2, pp 278–293 | Cite as

On Dynamic Aggregation Systems

  • N. L. Polyakov
  • M. V. ShamolinEmail author


We consider consecutive aggregation procedures for individual preferences 𝔠 ∈ ℭr (A) on a set of alternatives A, |A| ≥ 3: on each step, the participants are subject to intermediate collective decisions on some subsets B of the set A and transform their a priori preferences according to an adaptation function 𝒜. The sequence of intermediate decisions is determined by a lot J, i.e., an increasing (with respect to inclusion) sequence of subsets B of the set of alternatives. An explicit classification is given for the clones of local aggregation functions, each clone consisting of all aggregation functions that dynamically preserve a symmetric set 𝔇 ⊆ ℭr (A) with respect to a symmetric set of lots 𝒥. On the basis of this classification, it is shown that a clone ℱ of local aggregation functions that preserves the set ℜ2 (A) of rational preferences with respect to a symmetric set 𝒥 contains nondictatorial aggregation functions if and only if 𝒥 is a set of maximal lots, in which case the clone ℱ is generated by the majority function. On the basis of each local aggregation function f, lot J, and an adaptation function 𝒜, one constructs a nonlocal (in general) aggregation function fJ,A that imitates a consecutive aggregation procesure. If f dynamically preserves a set 𝔇 ⊆ ℭr (A) with respect to a set of lots 𝒥, then the aggregation function fJ,A preserves the set 𝔇 for each lot J ∈ 𝒥. If 𝔇 = ℜ2(A), then the adaptation function can be chosen in such a way that in any profile c ∈ (ℜ2(A))n, the Condorcet winner (if it exists) would coincide with the maximal element with respect to the preferences fJ,A (c) for each maximal lot J and f that dynamically preserves the set of rational preferences with respect to the set of maximal lots.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Shelah, “On the Arrow property,” Adv. Appl. Math., 34, 217–251 (2005).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Polyakov and M. Shamolin, “On a generalization of Arrow’s impossibility theorem,” Dokl. Math., 89, No. 3, 290–292 (2014).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. Polyakov, Functional Galois Connections and a Classification of Symmetric Conservative Clones with a Finite Carrier, Preprint (2018).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Aizerman and F. Aleskerov, “Voting operators in the space of choice functions,” Math. Soc. Sci., 11, No. 3, 201–242 (1986).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. T. Aleskerov, Arrovian Aggregation Models, Springer, New York (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. T. Aleskerov, “Local aggregation models,” Autom. Remote Control, No. 10, 3–26 (2000).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. L. Polyakov and M. V. Shamolin, “On closed symmetric classes of functions preserving an arbitrary one-place predicate,” Vestn. Samarsk. Univ. Estestv. Ser., No. 6 (107), 61–73 (2013).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Post, Two-Valued Iterative Systems of Mathematical Logic, Ann. Math. Stud., Vol. 5, Princeton Univ. (1942).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. S. Marchenkov, Functional Systems with Superposition [in Russian], Fizmatlit, Moscow (2004).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Lau, Function Algebras on Finite Sets. A Basic Course on Many-Valued Logic and Clone Theory, Springer, Berlin (2006).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Arrow, Social Choice and Individual Values, Yale Univ. Press (1963).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Brandt, V. Conitzer, U. Endriss, et al., Handbook of Computational Social Choice Cambridge Univ. Press (2016).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations