# Algorithmically Efficient Syntactic Characterization of Possibility Domains

## TL;DR

This paper provides an efficient algorithmic characterization of judgment aggregation domains using propositional formulas, enabling recognition and construction of domains with various democratic properties.

## Contribution

It introduces a syntactic framework for identifying domains supporting non-dictatorial aggregation, with efficient methods for recognition and construction.

## Key findings

- Domains can be characterized by specific propositional formulas.
- Efficient algorithms exist for recognizing such formulas.
- Constructive methods are provided for given domains.

## Abstract

In the field of Judgment Aggrgation, a domain, that is a subset of a Cartesian power of $\{0,1\}$, is considered to reflect abstract rationality restrictions on vectors of two-valued judgments on a number of issues. We are interested in the ways we can aggregate the positions of a set of individuals, whose positions over each issue form vectors of the domain, by means of unanimous (idempotent) functions, whose output is again an element of the domain. Such functions are called non-dictatorial, when their output is not simply the positions of a single individual. Here, we consider domains admitting various kinds of non-dictatorial aggregators, which reflect various properties of majority aggregation: (locally) non-dictatorial, generalized dictatorships, anonymous, monotone, StrongDem and systematic. We show that interesting and, in some sense, democratic voting schemes are always provided by domains that can be described by propositional formulas of specific syntactic types we define. Furthermore, we show that we can efficiently recognize such formulas and that, given a domain, we can both efficiently check if it is described by such a formula and, in case it is, construct it. Our results fall in the realm of classical results concerning the syntactic characterization of domains with specific closure properties, like domains closed under logical AND which are the models of Horn formulas. The techniques we use to obtain our results draw from judgment aggregation as well as propositional logic and universal algebra.