Objective Social Choice: Using Auxiliary Information to Improve Voting\n Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How should one combine noisy information from diverse sources to make an\ninference about an objective ground truth? This frequently recurring, normative\nquestion lies at the core of statistics, machine learning, policy-making, and\neveryday life. It has been called "combining forecasts", "meta-analysis",\n"ensembling", and the "MLE approach to voting", among other names. Past studies\ntypically assume that noisy votes are identically and independently distributed\n(i.i.d.), but this assumption is often unrealistic. Instead, we assume that\nvotes are independent but not necessarily identically distributed and that our\nensembling algorithm has access to certain auxiliary information related to the\nunderlying model governing the noise in each vote. In our present work, we: (1)\ndefine our problem and argue that it reflects common and socially relevant real\nworld scenarios, (2) propose a multi-arm bandit noise model and count-based\nauxiliary information set, (3) derive maximum likelihood aggregation rules for\nranked and cardinal votes under our noise model, (4) propose, alternatively, to\nlearn an aggregation rule using an order-invariant neural network, and (5)\nempirically compare our rules to common voting rules and naive\nexperience-weighted modifications. We find that our rules successfully use\nauxiliary information to outperform the naive baselines.\n
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".