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

General Multi Agent Pairwise Preference
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

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.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

40/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 50%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Pairwise Preference

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"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."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"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."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"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."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"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."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"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."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Pairwise Preference
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Unit of annotation: Ranking
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: Multi Agent
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Moderate
  • Use this page as: Background context only

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

Metadata 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 guarantees in a centralized setting, i.e., when all the ranking data to be aggregated can be brought together in a single computing unit.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

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, 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.
  • 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.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

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.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now