Crowdsourcing accurately and robustly predicts Supreme Court decisions
Daniel Martin Katz, Michael James Bommarito II, Josh Blackman

TL;DR
This study demonstrates that crowdsourcing can reliably predict Supreme Court decisions with high accuracy, outperforming null models, based on extensive data and a novel framework for constructing crowd models.
Contribution
The paper introduces a comprehensive crowd construction framework and applies it to a large dataset, showing crowdsourcing's robustness and high accuracy in legal decision prediction.
Findings
Crowdsourcing achieved 80.8% case-level accuracy.
The study analyzed over 600,000 predictions from 7,000+ participants.
Crowdsourcing outperforms traditional null models in this context.
Abstract
Scholars have increasingly investigated "crowdsourcing" as an alternative to expert-based judgment or purely data-driven approaches to predicting the future. Under certain conditions, scholars have found that crowdsourcing can outperform these other approaches. However, despite interest in the topic and a series of successful use cases, relatively few studies have applied empirical model thinking to evaluate the accuracy and robustness of crowdsourcing in real-world contexts. In this paper, we offer three novel contributions. First, we explore a dataset of over 600,000 predictions from over 7,000 participants in a multi-year tournament to predict the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Second, we develop a comprehensive crowd construction framework that allows for the formal description and application of crowdsourcing to real-world data. Third, we apply this framework…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
