Robust Sparse Voting
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 17 Feb 2022.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 2; 2025: 1.
4 papers.
- 2022On the Impossible Safety of Large AI Modelscited by 27
- 2024From Efficiency to Equity: Measuring Fairness in Preference Learningcited by 2
- 2025Robust Federated Inferencecited by 2
- 2024AI-EDI-SPACE: A Co-designed Dataset for Evaluating the Quality of Public Spacescited by 1
- 2025Robust Federated Inference30 Sep 2025
- 2024AI-EDI-SPACE: A Co-designed Dataset for Evaluating the Quality of Public Spaces1 Nov 2024
- 2024From Efficiency to Equity: Measuring Fairness in Preference Learning24 Oct 2024
- 2022On the Impossible Safety of Large AI Models30 Sep 2022