  It is common that a jury must grade a set of candidates in a cardinal scale
such as {1,2,3,4,5} or an ordinal scale such as {Great, Good, Average, Bad }.
When the number of candidates is very large such as hotels (BOOKING),
restaurants (GOOGLE), apartments (AIRBNB), drivers (UBER), or papers (EC), it
is unreasonable to assume that each jury member will provide a separate grade
for each candidate. Each jury member is more likely to abstain for some
candidates, cast a blank vote, or be associated at random, or as a function of
its expertise, with only a small subset of the candidates and is asked to grade
each of those. Extending the classical theory, we study aggregation methods in
which a voter will not be eligible to grade all the candidates, and the
candidates are not eligible for the same sets of voters. Moreover, each
candidate on which they are eligible, the voter will have the choice between: a
blank vote, grade the candidate, or abstain. Assuming single-peaked preferences
over the grades, we axiomatically characterise a broad class of strategy-proof
grading mechanisms satisfying axioms such as unanimity, anonymity, neutrality,
participation or consistency. Finally, when a strict ranking is necessary (to
distinguish let say between two borderline papers in a conference), some
tie-breaking rules, extending the leximin and majority judgment, are defined
and are shown to be equivalent to some strategy-proof grading functions on a
richer space of outcome. Our paper will propose new rules, called phantom-proxy
mechanisms, to aggregate the votes in the examples above or others, which
differ from the usual average mark, that are easily manipulable. Moreover, the
phantom-proxy are able to reduce the injustices caused by some candidates
juries too generous or severe.
