Selecting a number of voters for a voting ensemble

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2104.11833v1
• Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 22:37:02 GMT
• Title: Selecting a number of voters for a voting ensemble
• Authors: Eric Bax
• Abstract summary: We show that any number of voters may minimize the error rate over an out-of-sample distribution. The optimal number of voters depends on the out-of-sample distribution of the number of classifiers in error.
• Score: 0.24366811507669117
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: For a voting ensemble that selects an odd-sized subset of the ensemble classifiers at random for each example, applies them to the example, and returns the majority vote, we show that any number of voters may minimize the error rate over an out-of-sample distribution. The optimal number of voters depends on the out-of-sample distribution of the number of classifiers in error. To select a number of voters to use, estimating that distribution then inferring error rates for numbers of voters gives lower-variance estimates than directly estimating those error rates.

Related papers

• Ahead of the Count: An Algorithm for Probabilistic Prediction of Instant Runoff (IRV) Elections [0.0]
  We introduce a novel algorithm designed to predict outcomes in Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) elections. The algorithm takes as input a set of discrete probability distributions describing vote totals for each candidate ranking. We calculate all possible sequences of eliminations that might occur in the IRV rounds and assign a probability to each.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-15T00:25:51Z)
• Rank, Pack, or Approve: Voting Methods in Participatory Budgeting [2.326556516716391]
  The Stanford Participatory Budgeting platform has been used to engage residents in more than 150 budgeting processes. We present a data set with anonymized budget opinions from these processes with K-approval, K-ranking or knapsack primary ballots. We use vote pairs with different voting methods to analyze the effect of voting methods on the cost of selected projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T01:19:44Z)
• New Bounds on the Accuracy of Majority Voting for Multi-Class Classification [5.95012663623095]
  The accuracy of the MVF for the general multi-class classification problem has remained unknown. We show that under certain conditions, the error rate of the MVF exponentially decays toward zero as the number of independent voters increases. We then provide a discussion on the accuracy of the truth discovery algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-18T08:16:41Z)
• Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectors [117.72712117510953]
  Multiple choice questions (MCQs) serve as a common yet important task format in the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) This work shows that modern LLMs are vulnerable to option position changes due to their inherent "selection bias" We propose a label-free, inference-time debiasing method, called PriDe, which separates the model's prior bias for option IDs from the overall prediction distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-07T17:44:56Z)
• Adaptively Weighted Audits of Instant-Runoff Voting Elections: AWAIRE [61.872917066847855]
  Methods for auditing instant-runoff voting (IRV) elections are either not risk-limiting or require cast vote records (CVRs), the voting system's electronic record of the votes on each ballot. We develop an RLA method that uses adaptively weighted averages of test supermartingales to efficiently audit IRV elections when CVRs are not available.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T15:55:34Z)
• Conformal Language Modeling [61.94417935386489]
  We propose a novel approach to conformal prediction for generative language models (LMs) Standard conformal prediction produces prediction sets with rigorous, statistical guarantees. We demonstrate the promise of our approach on multiple tasks in open-domain question answering, text summarization, and radiology report generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-16T21:55:08Z)
• Data as voters: instance selection using approval-based multi-winner voting [1.597617022056624]
  We present a novel approach to the instance selection problem in machine learning (or data mining) In our model, instances play a double role as voters and candidates. For SVMs, we have obtained slight increases in the average accuracy by using several voting rules that satisfy EJR or PJR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T22:00:23Z)
• Expected Frequency Matrices of Elections: Computation, Geometry, and Preference Learning [58.23459346724491]
  We use the "map of elections" approach of Szufa et al. (AAMAS 2020) to analyze several well-known vote distributions. We draw the "skeleton map" of distributions, evaluate its robustness, and analyze its properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-16T17:40:22Z)
• Bribery as a Measure of Candidate Success: Complexity Results for Approval-Based Multiwinner Rules [58.8640284079665]
  We study the problem of bribery in multiwinner elections, for the case where the voters cast approval ballots (i.e., sets of candidates they approve) We consider a number of approval-based multiwinner rules (AV, SAV, GAV, RAV, approval-based Chamberlin--Courant, and PAV) In general, our problems tend to be easier when we limit out bribery actions on increasing the number of approvals of the candidate that we want to be in a winning committee.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-19T08:26:40Z)
• Adaptive Combinatorial Allocation [77.86290991564829]
  We consider settings where an allocation has to be chosen repeatedly, returns are unknown but can be learned, and decisions are subject to constraints. Our model covers two-sided and one-sided matching, even with complex constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-04T15:02:59Z)
• Random errors are not necessarily politically neutral [25.75404628089468]
  We examine the effect of random errors on Single Transferable Vote (STV) elections. The most important effect of random errors is to invalidate the ballot. Different validity rules for different voting styles mean that errors are much more likely to penalise some types of votes than others.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-02T03:37:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.