Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 73 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 51 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 31 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 32 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 103 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 218 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 460 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 35 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Robust Sparse Voting (2202.08656v2)

Published 17 Feb 2022 in cs.GT and econ.TH

Abstract: Many applications, such as content moderation and recommendation, require reviewing and scoring a large number of alternatives. Doing so robustly is however very challenging. Indeed, voters' inputs are inevitably sparse: most alternatives are only scored by a small fraction of voters. This sparsity amplifies the effects of biased voters introducing unfairness, and of malicious voters seeking to hack the voting process by reporting dishonest scores. We give a precise definition of the problem of robust sparse voting, highlight its underlying technical challenges, and present a novel voting mechanism addressing the problem. We prove that, using this mechanism, no voter can have more than a small parameterizable effect on each alternative's score; a property we call Lipschitz resilience. We also identify conditions of voters comparability under which any unanimous preferences can be recovered, even when each voter provides sparse scores, on a scale that is potentially very different from any other voter's score scale. Proving these properties required us to introduce, analyze and carefully compose novel aggregation primitives which could be of independent interest.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (57)
  1. Trust-based recommendation systems: an axiomatic approach. In WWW 2008, pages 199–208. ACM, 2008.
  2. Kenneth J Arrow. A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of political economy, 58(4):328–346, 1950.
  3. Nada Maucourant Atallah. How internet has become a battleground in the lebanese revolution. Le Commerce du Levant, 26, 2019.
  4. Majority judgment: measuring, ranking, and electing. MIT press, 2011.
  5. Jelke Bethlehem. Selection bias in web surveys. International statistical review, 78(2):161–188, 2010.
  6. Tournesol: Permissionless collaborative algorithmic governance with security guarantees. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01179, 2022.
  7. Industrialized disinformation: 2020 global inventory of organized social media manipulation, 2021.
  8. The global disinformation order: 2019 global inventory of organised social media manipulation. Project on Computational Propaganda, 2019.
  9. Democratic elections in faulty distributed systems. In International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking, pages 176–191. Springer, 2013.
  10. Chrysanthos Dellarocas. Immunizing online reputation reporting systems against unfair ratings and discriminatory behavior. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 150–157, 2000.
  11. Lara Dolden. Facebook removed over 15 billion fake accounts in 2 years. Tech Round, 2021.
  12. The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Foundations and Trends® in Theoretical Computer Science, 9(3–4):211–407, 2014.
  13. A security analysis of the facebook ad library. In 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2020, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 18-21, 2020, pages 661–678. IEEE, 2020.
  14. Peter Emerson. The original borda count and partial voting. Social Choice and Welfare, 40(2):353–358, 2013.
  15. Ulle Endriss. Trends in computational social choice. Lulu. com, 2017.
  16. Poisoning attacks to graph-based recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pages 381–392, 2018.
  17. Algorithms for group recommendation. In Group recommender systems, pages 27–58. Springer, 2018.
  18. Group recommender systems: An introduction. Springer, 2018.
  19. Aggregating incomplete and noisy rankings. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 2278–2286. PMLR, 2021.
  20. Random-walk computation of similarities between nodes of a graph with application to collaborative recommendation. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 19(3):355–369, 2007.
  21. Lê Nguyên Hoang. Strategy-proofness of the randomized condorcet voting system. Soc. Choice Welf., 48(3):679–701, 2017.
  22. Approval-based committee voting under incomplete information. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 5076–5083, 2022.
  23. John G Kemeny and LJ Snell. Preference ranking: an axiomatic approach. Mathematical models in the social sciences, pages 9–23, 1962.
  24. The byzantine generals problem. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 4(3):382–401, 1982.
  25. Daniel Lemire. Scale and translation invariant collaborative filtering systems. Information Retrieval, 8(1):129–150, 2005.
  26. Christian List. Social choice theory. 2013.
  27. Regularized robust estimation of mean and covariance matrix for incomplete data. Signal Processing, 165:278–291, 2019.
  28. Multi-winner social choice with incomplete preferences. In IJCAI, 2013.
  29. Judith Masthoff. Modeling the multiple people that are me. In International Conference on User Modeling, pages 258–262. Springer, 2003.
  30. Sybil-resilient social choice with low voter turnout. In European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pages 257–274. Springer, 2022.
  31. Byzantine preferential voting. In International Conference on Web and Internet Economics, pages 327–340. Springer, 2018.
  32. Stanislav Minsker. Geometric median and robust estimation in Banach spaces. Bernoulli, 21(4):2308 – 2335, 2015.
  33. Martin Moore. Fake accounts on social media, epistemic uncertainty and the need for an independent auditing of accounts. Internet Policy Review, 12(1), 2023.
  34. Axiomatic aggregation of incomplete rankings. IIE Transactions, 48(6):475–488, 2016.
  35. Stephan Morgenthaler. A survey of robust statistics. Statistical Methods and Applications, 15(3):271–293, 2007.
  36. Iterative ranking from pair-wise comparisons. Advances in neural information processing systems, 25, 2012.
  37. Sourcing and automation of political news and information during three european elections. Social Media+ Society, 5(3):2056305119863147, 2019.
  38. Social choice theory and recommender systems: Analysis of the axiomatic foundations of collaborative filtering. In AAAI/IAAI, pages 729–734, 2000.
  39. Grouplens: An open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pages 175–186, 1994.
  40. Recommender systems. Communications of the ACM, 40(3):56–58, 1997.
  41. Adam Satariano. Inside a pro-huawei influence campaign. The New York Times, 2021.
  42. Investigating selection bias of online surveys on coronavirus-related behavioral outcomes. In survey research methods, volume 14, pages 103–108, 2020.
  43. Markus Schulze. A new monotonic and clone-independent single-winner election method. Voting matters, 17(1):9–19, 2003.
  44. Amartya Sen. The possibility of social choice. American economic review, 89(3):349–378, 1999.
  45. Shilling attacks against collaborative recommender systems: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 53(1):291–319, 2020.
  46. Warren D Smith. Range voting. The paper can be downloaded from the author’s homepage at http://www. math. temple. edu/~ wds/homepage/works. html, 2000.
  47. A survey of collaborative filtering techniques. Advances in artificial intelligence, 2009, 2009.
  48. Sybil-resilient online content voting. In Jennifer Rexford and Emin Gün Sirer, editors, USENIX, NSDI 2009, pages 15–28. USENIX Association, 2009.
  49. Lewis Tseng. Voting in the presence of byzantine faults. In PRDC, pages 1–10. IEEE, 2017.
  50. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton university press, 1953.
  51. Your 2 is my 1, your 3 is my 9: Handling arbitrary miscalibrations in ratings. In Edith Elkind, Manuela Veloso, Noa Agmon, and Matthew E. Taylor, editors, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, AAMAS ’19, Montreal, QC, Canada, May 13-17, 2019, pages 864–872. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2019.
  52. Samuel Woolley. The Reality Game: A gripping investigation into deepfake videos, the next wave of fake news and what it means for democracy. Hachette UK, 2020.
  53. Mathematical modeling and analysis of product rating with partial information. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD), 9(4):1–33, 2015.
  54. Li Xiong and Ling Liu. Peertrust: Supporting reputation-based trust for peer-to-peer electronic communities. IEEE transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 16(7):843–857, 2004.
  55. Exploiting two-faceted web of trust for enhanced-quality recommendations. Expert systems with applications, 40(17):7080–7095, 2013.
  56. Dsybil: Optimal sybil-resistance for recommendation systems. In 2009 30th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 283–298. IEEE, 2009.
  57. Neriah Yue. The "weaponization" of facebook in myanmar: A case for corporate criminal liability. Hastings LJ, 71:813, 2019.
Citations (6)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 2 posts and received 23 likes.