Papers › Dealing with Expert Bias in Collective Decision-Making

Dealing with Expert Bias in Collective Decision-Making

25 Jun 2021arXiv:2106.13539archive 2025-07-28

Axel Abels, Tom Lenaerts, Vito Trianni, Ann Nowé

Quite some real-world problems can be formulated as decision-making problems wherein one must repeatedly make an appropriate choice from a set of alternatives. Multiple expert judgements, whether human or artificial, can help in taking correct decisions, especially when exploration of alternative solutions is costly. As expert opinions might deviate, the problem of finding the right alternative can be approached as a collective decision making problem (CDM) via aggregation of independent judgements. Current state-of-the-art approaches focus on efficiently finding the optimal expert, and thus perform poorly if all experts are not qualified or if they are overly biased, thereby potentially derailing the decision-making process. In this paper, we propose a new algorithmic approach based on contextual multi-armed bandit problems (CMAB) to identify and counteract such biased expertise. We explore homogeneous, heterogeneous and polarised expert groups and show that this approach is able to effectively exploit the collective expertise, outperforming state-of-the-art methods, especially when the quality of the provided expertise degrades. Our novel CMAB-inspired approach achieves a higher final performance and does so while converging more rapidly than previous adaptive algorithms.

PaperPDFCode

Code

axelabels/CDM_BIAS officialmentioned in paper report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Decision Making

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections