Efficient Elicitation of Collective Disagreements
The paper titled 'Efficient Elicitation of Collective Disagreements' explores how to analyze voter disagreements over alternatives. It proposes a new framework that identifies the minimal aggregated preference information needed to compute various disagreement measures. The authors introduce the plurality matrix and design elicitation protocols to estimate it, balancing participant numbers and cognitive load.
- ▪The study focuses on the structure of disagreement among voters regarding alternatives.
- ▪It introduces the plurality matrix, which generalizes pairwise comparisons.
- ▪The authors propose two elicitation protocols to estimate the plurality matrix.
arXiv cs.AI files mainly under ai research. We currently carry 1,128 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | arXiv cs.AI |
| Canonical URL | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.19521 |
| Publication time | Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 -0400 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-20T04:04:59.484Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-20T04:04:59.484Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | lu4es6KWwbDW |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence arXiv:2605.19521 (cs) [Submitted on 19 May 2026] Title:Efficient Elicitation of Collective Disagreements Authors:Mohamed Ouaguenouni, Felipe Garrido-Lucero, Umberto Grandi, César Hidalgo, Magdalena Tydrichova View a PDF of the paper titled Efficient Elicitation of Collective Disagreements, by Mohamed Ouaguenouni and 4 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) 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.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at arXiv cs.AI.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from arXiv cs.AI
