TY - GEN
T1 - How robust is the wisdom of the crowds?
AU - Alon, Noga
AU - Feldman, Michal
AU - Lev, Omer
AU - Tennenholtz, Moshe
N1 - Funding Information:
The work in the laboratory of J.G. is supported by the SYNAPSIS Foundation, the Béatrice Ederer-Weber Stiftung, the Floshield Foundation and the Alzheimer’s Association (grant no. NIRG-15-363964). The laboratory of D.M. is supported by the Foundation Jérôme Lejeune, Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Competitividad (grant no. BFU2014-53093). The laboratory of J.P.-T. is supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad and the FEDER programme from the EU (grant no. SAF2014-59469-R) and the CIBERNED. J.V.S.-M. is supported by a SYNAPSIS Foundation Fellowship for Advanced PostDocs and the Heidi Seiler-Stiftung foundation. H.H. is a Miguel Servet (CP14/00229) researcher funded by the Spanish Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII). B.A.S. is an EMBO long-term fellow (ALTF 1605-2014, Marie Curie Actions, LTFCOFUND2013, GA-2013-609409). A.M.-S. is a recipient of a FPI PhD studentship from MINECO. M.E. is an ICREA Research Professor. J.G. is an MQ fellow and a NARSAD Independent Investigator.
Funding Information:
Brain samples. Postmortem tissues were obtained from the IDIBELL Biobank, which is part of the eBrainNet Europe Bank (http://www.brainnet-europe. org/) ‘Network of Excellence’ funded by the European Commission in the 6th Framework Program ‘Life Science’ (LSHM-CT-2004-503039). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. The collection of all samples conformed to the relevant regulations, ethical considerations and legislation, as defined by the European Union. Samples were dissected and characterized for Braak stage45 before further examination. DNA and RNA from gray matter samples of frontal cortex were extracted for subsequent experiments. Only samples with a RNA integrity number (RIN) >6.5, according to the RNA quality test on Agilent’s 2100 bioanalyzer, were included in the study. These filtered samples were DNA and RNA from gray matter of frontal cortex samples (Brodmann area 9) of 22 controls (Braak 0–II; 32% female; age 64 ± 3 years, mean ± s.e.m.) and 23 with AD (Braak V–VI; 43% female; age 77 ± 2 years, mean ± s.e.m.), matched for age and gender.
PY - 2015
Y1 - 2015
N2 - We introduce the study of adversarial effects on wisdom of the crowd phenomena. In particular, we examine the ability of an adversary to influence a social network so that the majority of nodes are convinced by a falsehood, using its power to influence a certain fraction, μ < 0.5 of N experts. Can a bad restaurant make a majority of the overall network believe in the quality of that restaurant by misleading a certain share of food critics into believing its food is good, and use the influence of those experts to make a majority of the overall network to believe in the quality of that restaurant? We are interested in providing an agent, who does not necessarily know the graph structure nor who the experts are, to determine the true value of a binary property using a simple majority. We prove bounds on the social graph's maximal degree, which ensure that with a high probability the adversary will fail (and the majority vote will coincide with the true value) when it can choose who the experts are, while each expert communicates the true value with probability p > 0.5. When we examine expander graphs as well as random graphs we prove such bounds even for stronger adversaries, who are able to pick and choose not only who the experts are, but also which ones of them would communicate the wrong values, as long as their proportion is 1 - p. Furthermore, we study different propagation models and their effects on the feasibility of obtaining the true value for different adversary types.
AB - We introduce the study of adversarial effects on wisdom of the crowd phenomena. In particular, we examine the ability of an adversary to influence a social network so that the majority of nodes are convinced by a falsehood, using its power to influence a certain fraction, μ < 0.5 of N experts. Can a bad restaurant make a majority of the overall network believe in the quality of that restaurant by misleading a certain share of food critics into believing its food is good, and use the influence of those experts to make a majority of the overall network to believe in the quality of that restaurant? We are interested in providing an agent, who does not necessarily know the graph structure nor who the experts are, to determine the true value of a binary property using a simple majority. We prove bounds on the social graph's maximal degree, which ensure that with a high probability the adversary will fail (and the majority vote will coincide with the true value) when it can choose who the experts are, while each expert communicates the true value with probability p > 0.5. When we examine expander graphs as well as random graphs we prove such bounds even for stronger adversaries, who are able to pick and choose not only who the experts are, but also which ones of them would communicate the wrong values, as long as their proportion is 1 - p. Furthermore, we study different propagation models and their effects on the feasibility of obtaining the true value for different adversary types.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84949756063&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84949756063&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:84949756063
T3 - IJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
SP - 2055
EP - 2061
BT - IJCAI 2015 - Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
A2 - Wooldridge, Michael
A2 - Yang, Qiang
PB - International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence
T2 - 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2015
Y2 - 25 July 2015 through 31 July 2015
ER -