Que recherchez-vous ?
Un contenu sur ce site
Un contenu sur ce site
Une personne sur l'annuaire
Une formation sur le catalogue
General presentation. Qualitative grading (e.g., ‘very promising’, ‘quite unlikely’) is pervasive in scientific evaluations and policy recommendations by expert panels, yet its formal foundations and aggregation methods remain underexplored. This project addresses this gap by applying formal resources dispersed across formal (social) epistemology and social choice theory, developing a novel theoretical framework for qualitative judgments (grades) and their aggregation, and applying them to science.
The project gathers a wonderful international team:
Marion Vorms
(Paris 1, France)
Issam Aldahman
(Bochum, Germany)
Olivér Ujvárossy
(Poitiers, France)
Daniil Khaitovich
(Poitiers, France)
Call for Abstracts
Workshop “Voting in expert committees – Majority Judgment and beyond”
9-10 September 2026
Philosophy department & lab. MAPP, Université de Poitiers, France
The workshop will start at 2 pm on Wednesday 9th and end at noon on Thursday 10th.
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)
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 31st 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.
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).
A. Develop an epistemology of qualitative judgments (“grades”) which apply to scientific items (such as hypotheses, questions, research projects) in various contexts (such as evaluation of pursuitworthiness, evaluation of acceptance for the purposes of policy guidance, or as ratified scientific knowledge) and develop corresponding rationality norms for epistemic grading.
B. Develop a framework of qualitative grade aggregation for epistemic purposes, present a logical map of grade aggregation procedures by establishing impossibility and possibility results, and normatively study the dynamics of epistemic grade aggregation in light of new evidence.
C. Apply the framework to different scientific contexts, focusing on judgment aggregation and deliberation in challenging situations such as expert disagreement or when facing time constraints and institutional pressures, in order to make new (and better) recommendations for aggregating judgments.
D. Disseminate research findings and solicit feedback from relevant stakeholders, such as expert agencies.
Traditional philosophical approaches to modeling beliefs in science, which typically rely on binary beliefs or probabilistic frameworks, fail to adequately capture the role of qualitative grading in scientific contexts. These approaches overlook important aspects of how qualitative judgments function in expert evaluations and decision-making. We hypothesize that enriching the literature with a formal treatment of qualitative grading will offer a more accurate and applicable framework for scientific evaluation. Methodologically, we propose that qualitative grading can be precisely formalized using rigorous tools, which can inform and enhance its role in scientific practice.
Contact: thomas.boyer.kassem@univ-poitiers.fr