 As should be evident, social choice theory is a vast field. Areas not covered in this entry, or mentioned only in passing, include: preference and welfare aggregation under risk and uncertainty (how to aggregate individual preferences or individual welfare into social preferences when the prospects to be ranked have risky or uncertain outcomes, to which at most probabilities can be assigned; e.g., Mongin and Pivato 2016); theories of fair division (how to divide one or several divisible or indivisible goods, such as cakes or houses, between several claimants; e.g., Brams and Taylor 1996 and Moulin 2004); theories of matching (how to allocate university places to applicants or donated organs to patients; e.g., Gale and Shapley 1963; Roth and Sotomayor 1992; Klaus, Malove, and Rossi 2016); behavioural social choice theory (analyzing empirical evidence of voting behaviour under various aggregation rules; e.g., Regenwetter et al. 2006); empirical social choice theory (analysing surveys and experiments on people’s intuitions about distributive justice; e.g., Gaertner and Schokkaert 2012); topological social choice theory (studying social-choice-theoretic questions using tools from mathematical topology; e.g., Chichilnisky 1980; Heal 1997); computational social choice theory (analysing computational properties of aggregation rules, including their computational complexity; e.g., Bartholdi, Tovey, and Trick 1989; Brandt, Conitzer, and Endriss 2013); the study of collective decision-making in non-human animals (studying group decisions in a variety of animal species from social insects to primates; see, e.g., Conradt and Roper 2003); and applications to social epistemology beyond Condorcet’s jury theorem and judgment aggregation (e.g., the analysis of group doxastic states and their relationship to individual doxastic states; e.g., Goldman 2004, 2010; Lackey 2016).