The Surprising Effectiveness of SP Voting with Partial Preferences
Hadi Hosseini, Debmalya Mandal, Amrit Puhan
Abstract
We consider the problem of recovering the ground truth ordering (ranking, top-, or others) over a large number of alternatives. The wisdom of crowd is a heuristic approach based on Condorcet's Jury theorem to address this problem through collective opinions. This approach fails to recover the ground truth when the majority of the crowd is misinformed. The surprisingly popular (SP) algorithm citeprelec2017solution is an alternative approach that is able to recover the ground truth even when experts are in minority. The SP algorithm requires the voters to predict other voters' report in the form of a full probability distribution over all rankings of alternatives. However, when the number of alternatives, , is large, eliciting the prediction report or even the vote over alternatives might be too costly. In this paper, we design a scalable alternative of the SP algorithm which only requires eliciting partial preferences from the voters, and propose new variants of the SP algorithm. In particular, we propose two versions -- Aggregated-SP and Partial-SP -- that ask voters to report vote and prediction on a subset of size () in terms of top alternative, partial rank, or an approval set. Through a large-scale crowdsourcing experiment on MTurk, we show that both of our approaches outperform conventional preference aggregation algorithms for the recovery of ground truth rankings, when measured in terms of Kendall-Tau distance and Spearman's . We further analyze the collected data and demonstrate that voters' behavior in the experiment, including the minority of the experts, and the SP phenomenon, can be correctly simulated by a concentric mixtures of Mallows model. Finally, we provide theoretical bounds on the sample complexity of SP algorithms with partial rankings to demonstrate the theoretical guarantees of the proposed methods.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on5
- Wisdom of the Crowd Voting: Truthful Aggregation of Voter Information and PreferencesGrant Schoenebeck, Biaoshuai TaoNeurIPS 2021 · 22 citations
- Concentric mixtures of Mallows models for top-k rankings: sampling and identifiabilityFabien Collas, Ekhine IrurozkiICML 2021 · 16 citations
- The Effectiveness of Peer Prediction in Long-Term ForecastingDebmalya Mandal, Goran Radanovic, David C. ParkesAAAI 2020 · 13 citations
- Rank Aggregation Using Scoring RulesNiclas Boehmer, Robert Bredereck, Dominik PetersAAAI 2023 · 10 citations
- Calibrating "Cheap Signals" in Peer Review without a PriorYuxuan Lu, Yuqing KongNeurIPS 2023 · 10 citations
Related papers
- HITSnDIFFs: From Truth Discovery to Ability Discovery by Recovering Matrices with the Consecutive Ones PropertyZixuan Chen, Subhodeep Mitra, R. Ravi, Wolfgang GatterbauerICDE 2024 · 3 citations
- Recovering Top-Two Answers and Confusion Probability in Multi-Choice CrowdsourcingHyeonsu Jeong, Hye Won ChungICML 2023 · 2 citations
- Beyond RLHF and NLHF: Population-Proportional Alignment under an Axiomatic FrameworkKihyun Kim, Jiawei Zhang, Asuman Ozdaglar, Pablo A. ParriloICLR 2026 · 5 citations
- Aggregating Binary Judgments Ranked by AccuracyDaniel Halpern, Gregory Kehne, Dominik Peters, Ariel D. Procaccia et al.AAAI 2021 · 1 citation
- How to aggregate Top-lists: Approximation algorithms via scores and average ranksClaire Mathieu, Simon MaurasSODA 2020 · 2 citations
