Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchCercetare AI

analiza aiqbench

This paper investigates the mathematical foundations of collective intelligence by analyzing how groups can aggregate individual judgments into consistent, non-manipulable, and truth-tracking outcomes. The authors prove new impossibility theorems regarding aggregation methods for complex variables with interconnections, concluding that while imperfect, the median method offers a robust practical solution. These findings are particularly relevant for designing reliable multi-agent systems and swarm intelligence architectures where consensus must be reached without strategic voting or logical inconsistency.
Surse care acoperăarXiv, AI Alignment Forum, Fortune
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

Collective intelligence through aggregation

arXiv2 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2610.06652v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Suppose a committee, expert panel, or other group is making judgments on some issues, where these may be not just yes/no-questions, such as whether a defendant is guilty, but also variables with many possible values, such as macroeconomic or meteorological variables or travel directions. Furthermore, there may be interconnections between different issues, as in the case of economic or climate variables. How can the group arrive at "intelligent" collective judgments, based on the group members' individual judgments? We investigate three challenges raised by this judgment-aggregation problem. First, reasonable methods of aggregation (such as defining the collective judgment for each issue as the average or median judgment) can produce inconsistent collective judgments. Secondly, many methods of aggregation are manipulable by strategic voting. Finally, not all methods of aggregation are conducive to tracking the truth on the issues in question. We prove new impossibility or possibility theorems on all three challenges, identifying what it takes to produce collective judgments in a consistent, non-manipulable, and truth-tracking manner and thereby to achieve collective intelligence through aggregation. Overall, the median method, though imperfect, performs reasonably well. We also note the relevance of our analysis for non-human group decisions.

Abstract:Suppose a committee, expert panel, or other group is making judgments on some issues, where these may be not just yes/no-questions, such as whether a defendant is guilty, but also variables with many possible values, such as macroeconomic or meteorological variables or travel directions. Furthermore, there may be interconnections between different issues, as in the case of economic or climate variables. How can the group arrive at "intelligent" collective judgments, based on the group members' individual judgments? We investigate three challenges raised by this judgment-aggregation problem. First, reasonable methods of aggregation (such as defining the collective judgment for each issue as the average or median judgment) can produce inconsistent collective judgments. Secondly, many methods of aggregation are manipulable by strategic voting. Finally, not all methods of aggregation are conducive to tracking the truth on the issues in question. We prove new impossibility or possibility theorems on all three challenges, identifying what it takes to produce collective judgments in a consistent, non-manipulable, and truth-tracking manner and thereby to achieve collective intelligence through aggregation. Overall, the median method, though imperfect, performs reasonably well. We also note the relevance of our analysis for non-human group decisions.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2610.06652 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2610.06652v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.06652 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2024.0454 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 297 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe