Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Decentralized Ranking Aggregation: Gossip Algorithms for Borda and Copeland Consensus

Anna Van Elst, Kerrian Le Caillec, Igor Colin, Stephan Clémençon · Feb 26, 2026 · Citations: 0

Abstract

The concept of ranking aggregation plays a central role in preference analysis, and numerous algorithms for calculating median rankings, often originating in social choice theory, have been documented in the literature, offering theoretical guarantees in a centralized setting, i.e., when all the ranking data to be aggregated can be brought together in a single computing unit. For many technologies (e.g. peer-to-peer networks, IoT, multi-agent systems), extending the ability to calculate consensus rankings with guarantees in a decentralized setting, i.e., when preference data is initially distributed across a communicating network, remains a major methodological challenge. Indeed, in recent years, the literature on decentralized computation has mainly focused on computing or optimizing statistics such as arithmetic means using gossip algorithms. The purpose of this article is precisely to study how to achieve reliable consensus on collective rankings using classical rules (e.g. Borda, Copeland) in a decentralized setting, thereby raising new questions, robustness to corrupted nodes, and scalability through reduced communication costs in particular. The approach proposed and analyzed here relies on random gossip communication, allowing autonomous agents to compute global ranking consensus using only local interactions, without coordination or central authority. We provide rigorous convergence guarantees, including explicit rate bounds, for the Borda and Copeland consensus methods. Beyond these rules, we also provide a decentralized implementation of consensus according to the median rank rule and local Kemenization. Extensive empirical evaluations on various network topologies and real and synthetic ranking datasets demonstrate that our algorithms converge quickly and reliably to the correct ranking aggregation.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper has direct human-feedback and/or evaluation protocol signal and is likely useful for eval pipeline design.

Eval-Fit Score

40/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

High-confidence candidate

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Pairwise Preference
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Ranking
  • Expertise required: General
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: Multi Agent
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.50
  • Flags: None

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

The concept of ranking aggregation plays a central role in preference analysis, and numerous algorithms for calculating median rankings, often originating in social choice theory, have been documented in the literature, offering theoretical… HFEPX signals include Pairwise Preference, Multi Agent with confidence 0.50. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 3, 2026, 6:49 PM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • The concept of ranking aggregation plays a central role in preference analysis, and numerous algorithms for calculating median rankings, often originating in social choice theory,…
  • peer-to-peer networks, IoT, multi-agent systems), extending the ability to calculate consensus rankings with guarantees in a decentralized setting, i.e., when preference data is…

Researcher Actions

  • Compare its human-feedback setup against pairwise and rubric hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Verify metric definitions before comparing against your eval pipeline.

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Extraction confidence is probabilistic and should be validated for critical decisions.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • The concept of ranking aggregation plays a central role in preference analysis, and numerous algorithms for calculating median rankings, often originating in social choice theory, have been documented in the literature, offering theoretical…
  • peer-to-peer networks, IoT, multi-agent systems), extending the ability to calculate consensus rankings with guarantees in a decentralized setting, i.e., when preference data is initially distributed across a communicating network, remains…
  • The approach proposed and analyzed here relies on random gossip communication, allowing autonomous agents to compute global ranking consensus using only local interactions, without coordination or central authority.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • The concept of ranking aggregation plays a central role in preference analysis, and numerous algorithms for calculating median rankings, often originating in social choice theory, have been documented in the literature, offering theoretical…
  • peer-to-peer networks, IoT, multi-agent systems), extending the ability to calculate consensus rankings with guarantees in a decentralized setting, i.e., when preference data is initially distributed across a communicating network, remains…

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Pairwise Preference

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.