IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joecth/v79y2025i1d10.1007_s00199-024-01570-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The range of collective accuracy for binary classifications under majority rule

Author

Listed:
  • Lu Hong

    (Loyola University Chicago)

  • Scott E. Page

    (University of Michigan, Santa Fe Institute)

Abstract

Many decisions and actions can be framed as binary classification problems in which an outcome function maps states of the world into one of two outcomes and in which individuals use models (interpreted signals) to classify the state. For this class of binary classification problems, we fully characterize the range of possible group accuracies as a function of group size, average individual accuracy and diversity (average pairwise disagreement) or groups using majority rule. Our characterization yields five implications (i) the range of possible collective accuracies can be large, especially for groups of low accuracy individuals, (ii) up to moderate levels of diversity, the maximal collective accuracy gain equals the maximal collective accuracy loss, (iii) possible group accuracy set-wise improves in the average accuracy of their members, (iv) larger groups increase the range of possible collective accuracies unless diversity is high, and (v) for groups to be guaranteed to be more accurate than their average member, diversity must be high.

Suggested Citation

  • Lu Hong & Scott E. Page, 2025. "The range of collective accuracy for binary classifications under majority rule," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 79(1), pages 275-300, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:79:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s00199-024-01570-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s00199-024-01570-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00199-024-01570-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00199-024-01570-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hong, Lu & Page, Scott, 2009. "Interpreted and generated signals," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 2174-2196, September.
    2. Börgers, Tilman & Hernando-Veciana, Angel & Krähmer, Daniel, 2013. "When are signals complements or substitutes?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 165-195.
    3. Jehiel, Philippe, 2005. "Analogy-based expectation equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 81-104, August.
    4. Hong, Lu & Page, Scott E., 2001. "Problem Solving by Heterogeneous Agents," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 123-163, March.
    5. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1995. "Case-Based Decision Theory," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 605-639.
    6. Austen-Smith, David & Banks, Jeffrey S., 1996. "Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(1), pages 34-45, March.
    7. Sims, Christopher A., 2003. "Implications of rational inattention," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 665-690, April.
    8. Al-Najjar, Nabil I. & Pai, Mallesh M., 2014. "Coarse decision making and overfitting," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 467-486.
    9. Jon Kleinberg & Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan & Ziad Obermeyer, 2015. "Prediction Policy Problems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 491-495, May.
    10. Joaquin Navajas & Tamara Niella & Gerry Garbulsky & Bahador Bahrami & Mariano Sigman, 2018. "Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(2), pages 126-132, February.
    11. Austen-Smith, David & Feddersen, Timothy J., 2006. "Deliberation, Preference Uncertainty, and Voting Rules," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(2), pages 209-217, May.
    12. Feddersen, Timothy J & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 1996. "The Swing Voter's Curse," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 408-424, June.
    13. Serguei Kaniovski, 2010. "Aggregation of correlated votes and Condorcet’s Jury Theorem," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 453-468, September.
    14. McLennan, Andrew, 1998. "Consequences of the Condorcet Jury Theorem for Beneficial Information Aggregation by Rational Agents," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(2), pages 413-418, June.
    15. Scott E. Page, 2007. "Prologue to The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies," Introductory Chapters, in: The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies, Princeton University Press.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bouton, Laurent & Llorente-Saguer, Aniol & Malherbe, Frédéric, 2017. "Unanimous rules in the laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 179-198.
    2. Bouton, Laurent & Castanheira, Micael & Llorente-Saguer, Aniol, 2016. "Divided majority and information aggregation: Theory and experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 114-128.
    3. Buechel, Berno & Mechtenberg, Lydia, 2019. "The swing voter's curse in social networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 241-268.
    4. Großer, Jens & Seebauer, Michael, 2016. "The curse of uninformed voting: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 205-226.
    5. Irem Bozbay, 2015. "Truth-Tracking Judgment Aggregation Over Interconnected Issues," School of Economics Discussion Papers 0916, School of Economics, University of Surrey.
    6. Sourav Bhattacharya, 2006. "Preference Monotonicity and Information Aggregation in Elections," Working Paper 325, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Dec 2008.
    7. Andreas Blume & April Mitchell Franco & Paul Heidhues, 2021. "Dynamic coordination via organizational routines," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(4), pages 1001-1047, November.
    8. Patrick Hummel, 2012. "Deliberation in large juries with diverse preferences," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 595-608, March.
    9. Philippe Jehiel, 2022. "Analogy-Based Expectation Equilibrium and Related Concepts:Theory, Applications, and Beyond," PSE Working Papers halshs-03735680, HAL.
    10. Paolo Balduzzi & Clara Graziano & Annalisa Luporini, 2014. "Voting in small committees," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 111(1), pages 69-95, February.
    11. Gratton, Gabriele, 2014. "Pandering and electoral competition," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 163-179.
    12. Pivato, Marcus, 2017. "Epistemic democracy with correlated voters," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 51-69.
    13. Mark T. Le Quement & Isabel Marcin, 2016. "Communication and voting in heterogeneous committees: An experimental study," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2016_05, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, revised Oct 2016.
    14. Bozbay, Irem & Peters, Hans, 2019. "Information aggregation with a continuum of types," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 46-49.
    15. Ali, S. Nageeb & Bohren, J. Aislinn, 2019. "Should straw polls be banned?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 284-294.
    16. Laurent Bouto & Aniol Llorente-Saguer & Fédéric Malherbe, 2014. "Get Rid of Unanimity: The Superiority of Majority Rule with Veto Power," Working Papers 722, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    17. Franz Dietrich & Kai Spiekermann, 2025. "Deliberation and the wisdom of crowds," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 79(2), pages 603-655, March.
    18. Tajika, Tomoya, 2018. "Collective Mistakes: Intuition Aggregation for a Trick Question under Strategic Voting," Discussion Paper Series 674, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    19. Daskalova, Vessela & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2020. "Categorization and coordination," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    20. Gershkov, Alex & Szentes, Balázs, 2009. "Optimal voting schemes with costly information acquisition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 36-68, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Collective Decision Making; Majority Rule; Diversity; Condorcet Jury Theorem; Voting; Deliberation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:79:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s00199-024-01570-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.