Tracking Truth with Liquid Democracy

References

• Alon N, Spencer JH (2016) The Probablistic Method (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Atanasov P, Rescober P, Stone E, Swift SA, Servan-Schreiber E, Tetlock P, Ungar L, Mellers B (2017) Distilling the wisdom of crowds: Prediction markets vs. prediction polls. Management Sci. 63(3):691–706.Link, Google Scholar
• Barabási AL, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439):509–512.Google Scholar
• Becker R, D’angelo G, Delfaraz E, Gilbert H (2021) Unveiling the truth in liquid democracy with misinformed voters. Proc. 7th Internat. Conf. Algorithmic Decision Theory (ADT) (Springer, Cham, Switzerland), 132–146.Google Scholar
• Benhaim A, Falk BH, Tsoukalas G (2023) Scaling blockchains: Can committee-based consensus help? Management Sci. 69(11):6525–6539.Link, Google Scholar
• Bloembergen D, Grossi D, Lackner M (2019) On rational delegations in liquid democracy. Proc. 33rd AAAI Conf. Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) (AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA), 1796–1803.Google Scholar
• Blum C, Zuber CI (2016) Liquid democracy: Potentials, problems, and perspectives. J. Political Philos. 24(2):162–182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bollobás B, Janson S, Riordan O (2007) The phase transition in inhomogeneous random graphs. Random Structures Algorithms 31(1):3–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brill M, Talmon N (2018) Pairwise liquid democracy. Proc. 27th Internat. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) (AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA), 137–143.Google Scholar
• Campbell J, Casella A, de Lara L, Mooers VR, Ravindran D (2022) Liquid democracy. Two experiments on delegation in voting. Preprint, submitted December 19, https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.09715v1.Google Scholar
• Caragiannis I, Micha E (2019) A contribution to the critique of liquid democracy. Proc. 28th Internat. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) (ijcai.org), 116–122.Google Scholar
• Chen MK, Ingersoll JE Jr, Kaplan EH (2008) Modeling a presidential prediction market. Management Sci. 54(8):1381–1394.Link, Google Scholar
• Christoff Z, Grossi D (2017) Binary voting with delegable proxy: An analysis of liquid democracy. Proc. 16th Conf. Theoret. Aspects Rationality Knowledge (TARK) 251:134–150.Google Scholar
• Chung F, Handjani S, Jungreis D (2003) Generalizations of Polya’s urn problem. Ann. Combinatorics 7(2):141–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Collevecchio A, Cotar C, LiCalzi M (2013) On a preferential attachment and generalized Pólya’s urn model. Ann. Appl. Probab. 23(3):1219–1253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhillon A, Kotsialou G, Ravindran D, Xefteris D (2023) Information aggregation with delegation of votes. Preprint, submitted June 6, https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03960.Google Scholar
• Drinea E, Enachescu M, Mitzenmacher MD (2001) Variations on random graph models for the web. Technical report, Harvard Computer Science Group, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Durrett R (2007) Random Graph Dynamics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Eggenberger F, Pólya G (1923) Über die statistik verketteter vorgänge. ZAMM 3(4):279–289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellis J, Fosdick BK, Rasmussen C (2016) Women 1.5 times more likely to leave stem pipeline after calculus compared with men: Lack of mathematical confidence a potential culprit. PLoS One 11(7):e0157447.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fortuin CM, Kasteleyn PW, Ginibre J (1971) Correlation inequalities on some partially ordered sets. Comm. Math. Phys. 22(2):89–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gautschi W (1959) Some elementary inequalities relating to the gamma and incomplete gamma function. J. Math. Phys. 38(1):77–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gölz P, Kahng A, Mackenzie S, Procaccia AD (2018) The fluid mechanics of liquid democracy. Proc. 14th Conf. Web Internet Econom. (WINE) (Springer Nature, Cham, Switzerland), 188–202.Google Scholar
• Green-Armytage J (2015) Direct voting and proxy voting. Constitutional Political Econom. 26(2):190–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Häggström O, Kalai G, Mossel E (2006) A law of large numbers for weighted majority. Adv. Appl. Math. 37(1):112–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hardt S, Lopes LCR (2015) Google votes: A liquid democracy experiment on a corporate social network. Technical Disclosure Commons. Accessed December 27, 2024, https://www.tdcommons.org/dpubs_series/79.Google Scholar
• Hartigan JA, Wong MA (1979) A k-means clustering algorithm. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. C Appl. Statist. 28(1):100–108.Google Scholar
• Huang J (2023) Thy neighbor’s vote: Peer effects in proxy voting. Management Sci. 69(7):4169–4189.Link, Google Scholar
• Janson S (2020) Rate of convergence for traditional Pólya urns. J. Appl. Probab. 57(4):1029–1044.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson NL, Kotz S (1978) Urn Models and Their Application: An Approach to Modern Discrete Probability Theory (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Kahng A, Mackenzie S, Procaccia AD (2021) Liquid democracy: An algorithmic perspective. J. Artificial Intelligence Res. 70:1223–1252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kling CC, Kunegis J, Hartmann H, Strohmaier M, Staab S (2015) Voting behaviour and power in online democracy: A study of LiquidFeedback in Germany’s pirate party. Proc. 9th Internat. AAAI Conf. Web Social Media (ICWSM) (AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA).Google Scholar
• Lalor JP, Rodriguez P (2023) PY-IRT: A scalable item response theory library for python. INFORMS J. Comput. 35(1):5–13.Link, Google Scholar
• Li C, Xu R, Duan L (2023) Liquid democracy in DPOs blockchains. Proc. 5th ACM Internat. Sympos. Blockchain Secure Critical Infrastructure (ACM, New York), 25–33.Google Scholar
• List C, Goodin RE (2001) Epistemic democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet jury theorem. J. Polit. Philos. 9(3):277–306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mahmoud H (2009) Pólya Urn Models (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL).Google Scholar
• Markov AA (1917) Sur quelques formules limites du calcul des probabilités. Bulletin de l’Académie des Sciences 11(3):177–186.Google Scholar
• Nitzan S, Paroush J (2017) Collective decision making and jury theorems. Parisi F, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics: Volume 1: Methodology and Concepts (Oxford Academic, Oxford, UK), 494–516.Google Scholar
• Pivato M (2012) A statistical approach to epistemic democracy. Episteme 9(2):115–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pólya G (1930) Sur quelques points de la théorie des probabilités. Annales de l’institut Henri Poincaré 1(2):117–161.Google Scholar
• Revel M, Halpern D, Berinsky A, Jadbabaie A (2022) Liquid democracy in practice: An empirical analysis of its epistemic performance. Proc. 2nd ACM Conf. Equity Access Algorithms Mechanisms Optimization (EAAMO) (ACM, New York).Google Scholar
• Sarsons H, Xu G (2021) Confidence men? Evidence on confidence and gender among top economists. AEA Papers Proc. (American Economic Association, Nashville, TN), vol. 111, 65–68.Google Scholar
• Satopaa V, Albrecht J, Irwin D, Raghavan B (2011) Finding a “Kneedle” in a haystack: Detecting knee points in system behavior. 2011 31st Internat. Conf. Distributed Comput. Systems Workshops (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 166–171.Google Scholar
• Simoiu C, Sumanth C, Mysore A, Goel S (2019) Studying the “wisdom of crowds” at scale. Proc. AAAI Conf. Human Comput. Crowdsourcing 7(1):171–179.Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1955) On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika 42(3/4):425–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Young HP (1988) Condorcet’s theory of voting. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 82(4):1231–1244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Grossi D (2021) Power in liquid democracy. Proc. 35th AAAI Conf. Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) (AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA), 5822–5830.Google Scholar