Efficient Elicitation of Collective Disagreements

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.19521v1
• Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 08:23:58 GMT
• Title: Efficient Elicitation of Collective Disagreements
• Abstract summary: We analyze the structure of the disagreement among a population of voters over a set of alternatives.<n>Surveys typically ask either for pairwise comparisons, simple and intuitive for participants, or full rankings over alternatives.
• Score: 4.197504510335754
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We analyze the structure of the disagreement among a population of voters over a set of alternatives. Surveys typically ask either for pairwise comparisons, simple and intuitive for participants, or full rankings over alternatives, eliciting the entire voters' preferences. Building on the observation that pairwise comparisons cannot distinguish structural disagreement from noise, we propose a stratified framework to identify the minimal aggregated preference information needed to compute a number of disagreement measures from the literature. Specifically, we introduce the plurality matrix, a generalization of pairwise comparisons that records, for every subset $S$ of alternatives, the probability that each $a \in S$ ranks first in $S$. We define the level of a disagreement measure as the smallest subset size needed to express it, showing that many existing notions, including rank-variance and divisiveness, sit at level $3$, proving that pairwise comparisons are not enough. In addition, we demonstrate the interest of going beyond level $3$ both theoretically and experimentally. To make these results actionable, we design two elicitation protocols to estimate the plurality matrix, exploring the trade-off between the number of required participants and the cognitive load requested to each of them.

Related papers

• Action-Aligned Retrieval with Pairwise Multimodal Reranking for Text-Based Person Anomaly Search [10.617164505348283]
  Text-based person anomaly search requires distinguishing individuals based on fine-grained, context-dependent behaviors rather than mere appearance.<n>Existing methods struggle to capture these context-conditioned actions.<n>We propose a unified three-stage coarse-to-fine framework that combines action-aligned retrieval with pairwise multimodal reranking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-24T17:04:34Z)
• Instance-Optimal Estimation with Multiple LLM Judges on a Budget [84.31744861038106]
  We formalize this question as *budgeted heteroskedastic multi-judge estimation*.<n>Given $K$ prompt-response pairs, $J$ judges with known costs, and unknown query-judge variances, the goal is to estimate a bounded score vector while minimizing an $ell_p$-error.<n>We prove that EST-IVWE matches the oracle IVWE rate up to lower-order terms in the budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-22T08:26:08Z)
• Almost Asymptotically Optimal Active Clustering Through Pairwise Observations [59.20614082241528]
  We propose a new analysis framework for clustering $M$ items into an unknown number of $K$ distinct groups using noisy and actively collected responses.<n>We establish a fundamental lower bound on the expected number of queries needed to achieve a desired confidence in the accuracy of the clustering.<n>We develop a computationally feasible variant of the Generalized Likelihood Ratio statistic and show that its performance gap to the lower bound can be accurately empirically estimated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T14:16:47Z)
• Rethinking Consistent Multi-Label Classification under Inexact Supervision [60.79309683889278]
  In partial multi-label learning, each instance is annotated with a candidate label set, among which only some labels are relevant.<n>In complementary multi-label learning, each instance is annotated with complementary labels indicating the classes to which the instance does not belong.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-05T08:30:32Z)
• Constrained Pareto Set Identification with Bandit Feedback [10.967572582187014]
  Given a $K$-armed bandit with unknown means, the goal is to identify the set of arms whose mean is not uniformly worse than that of another arm.<n>Our focus lies in fixed-confidence identification, for which we introduce an algorithm that significantly outperforms racing-like algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:29:28Z)
• Pairwise Calibrated Rewards for Pluralistic Alignment [32.82521299417802]
  Current alignment pipelines presume a single, universal notion of desirable behavior.<n>We propose reflecting diverse human preferences through a distribution over multiple reward functions.<n>We prove that even a small outlier-free ensemble can accurately represent diverse preference distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T18:38:24Z)
• Optimal Multi-Distribution Learning [88.3008613028333]
  Multi-distribution learning seeks to learn a shared model that minimizes the worst-case risk across $k$ distinct data distributions.<n>We propose a novel algorithm that yields an varepsilon-optimal randomized hypothesis with a sample complexity on the order of (d+k)/varepsilon2.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-08T16:06:29Z)
• Variance-Aware Regret Bounds for Stochastic Contextual Dueling Bandits [53.281230333364505]
  This paper studies the problem of contextual dueling bandits, where the binary comparison of dueling arms is generated from a generalized linear model (GLM) We propose a new SupLinUCB-type algorithm that enjoys computational efficiency and a variance-aware regret bound $tilde Obig(dsqrtsum_t=1Tsigma_t2 + dbig)$. Our regret bound naturally aligns with the intuitive expectation in scenarios where the comparison is deterministic, the algorithm only suffers from an $tilde O(d)$ regret.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T08:15:52Z)
• Crowdsourcing subjective annotations using pairwise comparisons reduces bias and error compared to the majority-vote method [0.0]
  We introduce a theoretical framework for understanding how random error and measurement bias enter into crowdsourced annotations of subjective constructs. We then propose a pipeline that combines pairwise comparison labelling with Elo scoring, and demonstrate that it outperforms the ubiquitous majority-voting method in reducing both types of measurement error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T17:14:12Z)
• Ranking Inferences Based on the Top Choice of Multiway Comparisons [2.468314282946207]
  This paper considers ranking inference of $n$ items based on the observed data on the top choice among $M$ randomly selected items at each trial. It is a useful modification of the Plackett-Luce model for $M$-way ranking with only the top choice observed and is an extension of the celebrated Bradley-Terry-Luce model that corresponds to $M=2$.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-22T02:34:52Z)
• A Unified Framework for Multi-distribution Density Ratio Estimation [101.67420298343512]
  Binary density ratio estimation (DRE) provides the foundation for many state-of-the-art machine learning algorithms. We develop a general framework from the perspective of Bregman minimization divergence. We show that our framework leads to methods that strictly generalize their counterparts in binary DRE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-07T01:23:20Z)
• Adaptive Sampling for Heterogeneous Rank Aggregation from Noisy Pairwise Comparisons [85.5955376526419]
  In rank aggregation problems, users exhibit various accuracy levels when comparing pairs of items. We propose an elimination-based active sampling strategy, which estimates the ranking of items via noisy pairwise comparisons. We prove that our algorithm can return the true ranking of items with high probability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-08T13:51:55Z)

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.