Decision tree (and its extensions such as Gradient Boosting Decision Trees and Random Forest) is a widely used machine learning algorithm, due to its practical effectiveness and model interpretability. With the emergence of big data, there is an increasing need to parallelize the training process of decision tree. However, most existing attempts along this line suffer from high communication costs. In this paper, we propose a new algorithm, called \emph{Parallel Voting Decision Tree (PV-Tree)}, to tackle this challenge. After partitioning the training data onto a number of (e.g., $M$) machines, this algorithm performs both local voting and global voting in each iteration.

A typical solution isdirect democracywhich decides based on amajority vote, the so called "wisdom of the crowd."

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has removed thousands of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein from its website after victims said their identities had been compromised. Lawyers for Epstein's victims said flawed redactions in the files released on Friday had turned upside down the lives of nearly 100 survivors. Email addresses and nude photos in which the names and faces of potential victims could be identified were included in the release. Survivors issued a statement calling the disclosure outrageous and said they should not be named, scrutinized and retraumatized. The DOJ said it had taken down all the flagged files and that mistakes were due to technical or human error.

Decision tree (and its extensions such as Gradient Boosting Decision Trees and Random Forest) is a widely used machine learning algorithm, due to its practical effectiveness and model interpretability. With the emergence of big data, there is an increasing need to parallelize the training process of decision tree. However, most existing attempts along this line suffer from high communication costs. In this paper, we propose a new algorithm, called \emph{Parallel Voting Decision Tree (PV-Tree)}, to tackle this challenge. After partitioning the training data onto a number of (e.g., $M$) machines, this algorithm performs both local voting and global voting in each iteration.

However, most existing attempts along this line suffer from high communication costs. In this paper, we propose a new algorithm, called Parallel V oting Decision Tree (PV-Tree), to tackle this challenge.

This happens in noisy settings when voters have limited information.

Protected health information (PHI) de-identification is critical for enabling the safe reuse of clinical notes, yet evaluating and comparing PHI de-identification models typically depends on costly, small-scale expert annotations. We present TEAM-PHI, a multi-agent evaluation and selection framework that uses large language models (LLMs) to automatically measure de-identification quality and select the best-performing model without heavy reliance on gold labels. TEAM-PHI deploys multiple Evaluation Agents, each independently judging the correctness of PHI extractions and outputting structured metrics. Their results are then consolidated through an LLM-based majority voting mechanism that integrates diverse evaluator perspectives into a single, stable, and reproducible ranking. Experiments on a real-world clinical note corpus demonstrate that TEAM-PHI produces consistent and accurate rankings: despite variation across individual evaluators, LLM-based voting reliably converges on the same top-performing systems. Further comparison with ground-truth annotations and human evaluation confirms that the framework's automated rankings closely match supervised evaluation. By combining independent evaluation agents with LLM majority voting, TEAM-PHI offers a practical, secure, and cost-effective solution for automatic evaluation and best-model selection in PHI de-identification, even when ground-truth labels are limited.

Political consultant Bradley Tusk has spent a fortune on mobile voting efforts. Now, he's launching a protocol to try to mainstream the technology. Joe Kiniry, a security expert specializing in elections, was attending an annual conference on voting technology in Washington, DC, when a woman approached him with an unusual offer. She said she represented a wealthy client interested in funding voting systems that would encourage bigger turnouts. Did he have any ideas?