Majority Judgment has been proposed by Balinski and Laraki as a way to avoid Arrow’s theorem, attenuate strategic voting, and enable voters to better express themselves, as they are asked to give a grade from a predetermined list (e.g., Excellent, Good, Average…) to each candidate, and not a ranking. Initially proposed for the political and competitive domains (e.g. wine tasting, sports judging), it could also be applied to science and expertise.

This workshop welcomes theoretical and empirical works which investigate questions related to the use of Majority Judgment in expert committees or science more generally, such as:

– Which variations on the Majority Judgment algorithm could be relevant for scientific or expertise domains? For instance, could Majority Judgment be given a risk-seeking, or a precautionary, flavor?

– With an eye to axiomatic characterization, which axioms would be best suited for expertise or scientific contexts? Which variations of Majority Judgment would result from this?

– What are the truth-tracking properties of Majority Judgment? How does it compare to other aggregation rules (e.g., Condorcet methods, evaluative voting)?

– How should deliberation be best articulated with Majority Judgment, or its variations? For instance, what are the benefits of alternating several votes and deliberations?

– How should the specific domain of application (e.g. grant review, journal refereeing, IPCC-style consensus statements) lead to give different answers to the above questions?

– How should expert judgments be aggregated along several dimensions with or without Majority Judgment (e.g., for a research grant assessment on novelty, feasibility, quality of the team, …).

Confirmed speakers (by alphabetical order)

• Issam Aldahman (Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany)

• Thomas Boyer-Kassem (Université de Poitiers, France)

• Rida Laraki (UM6P, Morocco)

• Michael Morreau (The Arctic University of Norway)

Venue. Philosophy department & lab. MAPP. Salle Guillemet (3rd floor), 8 rue Descartes, Poitiers. The workshop will start at 2 pm on Wednesday 9^th September and end at noon on Thursday 10^th.

Abstract submission. If you would like to contribute with a talk, please send an abstract of about 500-1000 words in a pdf document prepared for blind review at thomas.boyer.kassem@univ-poitiers.fr, with “Abstract submission” in the title of your email. In the body of the email, please indicate the names and affiliations of the authors. Abstracts will be considered on a continuous basis, with August 31^st as a limit (we recommend applying early, especially if you request a bursary or need a visa).

Participation. Talks will last 40 minutes + 20 minutes for questions. In-person participation is strongly preferred; online participation will remain exceptional (please indicate in your email if you intend to participate online only). We are pleased to offer some travel bursaries to support presenters with restricted budgets — e.g. those from under-resourced institutions or from countries with limited resources. If you wish to apply for a bursary, please indicate this in your submission email.
Online attendance will be possible, please write to the organizer (thomas.boyer.kassem@univ-poitiers.fr) to get a link.

Organization. Thomas Boyer-Kassem (Université de Poitiers, France), thomas.boyer.kassem@univ-poitiers.fr. Funded by Thomas’s Junior Institut Universitaire de France Chair and ANR-DFG project QUALIGRASCI (project ANR-25-FRAL-0009-01).