1 / 17

Aggregation of Partial Rankings p-Ratings and Top-m Lists

Aggregation of Partial Rankings p-Ratings and Top-m Lists. Nir Ailon Institute for Advanced Study. Rankings. linear order on element set V (candidates) e.g. over V={v 1 ,v 2 ,v 3 }:  =v 2 ,v 3 ,v 1 voting : expressing preferences IR : sorting search results by relevance

mary
Télécharger la présentation

Aggregation of Partial Rankings p-Ratings and Top-m Lists

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Aggregation of Partial Rankingsp-Ratings and Top-m Lists Nir Ailon Institute for Advanced Study

  2. Rankings linear order on element set V (candidates) e.g. over V={v1,v2,v3}: =v2,v3,v1 voting: expressing preferences IR: sorting search results by relevance learning: concept class for recommendation systems

  3. Rank Aggregation “fuse” list of rankings (votes) into one 1 2 . . k 

  4. Partial Ranking linear order on equivalence classes of elt’s e.g. =[v1v4], [v2v7v5], [v3v6] equivalent elements: ties v1< v7, v3 v6

  5. v300, v250, v1845, […] V250 < V1845 v300 < v5 v5 v6 ranking of 2000 elementsV={v1,…, v2000} top-m lists (m=3)

  6. v1  v2   v3  v4  v5  v6   v7 v8  v9   v10   i ranking of 10 elements V={v1,…, v10} p-ratings (p=3) v10 < v1 v5 v4

  7. Partial Rank Aggregation “fuse” a list of partial rankings into one (partial) 1 (partial) 2 . . (partial) k  (full)

  8. Objective Function • [FKMSV’04]: metrics on partial rankings • equivalence (up to const) of all metrics • 3 approx for metric “Fprof” • [ACN’05]: Approx algorithms for rank agg’

  9. Objective Function (Generalized Kemeny) d(i, ) = #{u,v | u< v , v< u} (not a metric on partial rankings) min d(i, )

  10. Geometric Interpretation of d Pi-1(i) i’ (full) d(i, )  i=Pi(i’) (partial)

  11. Results Overview • 2-rating in P but top-2 NP-Hard • 2-approximation: RepeatChoice • Generalizes pick-a-perm [ACN05, DKNS01] • 3/2-approximation: LPKwikSorth • Generalizes LPKwikSort [ACN05] • Solve LP • “Tweak” optimal solution using function h

  12. Complexity • 2-rating aggregation in P • Input: 8 i i = [Vi1], [Vi2] Vi1[ Vi2=V • 8 v2V nv = #{i: v 2 Vi1} • sort V by decreasing nv • top-2 aggregation NP-Hard • Input: 8 i i= ui, vi, [V\{u_i, v_i}] • Proof: Reduction from Min FAS in tournaments [ACN05, Alon06]

  13. v1  v2   v3    v4  2 v1  v2   v3  v4  v1 v2 v3  v4  3 1 ranking of 4 candidates V={v1, v2, v3, v4} [v2 v3], [v1 v4] v2, v3, [v1 v4] v2, v3, v4, v1 RepeatChoice: 2 approximation

  14. Rounding LP • w(u,v) = #{i: u <i v}/k • Satisfies : w(u,v) · w(u,w) + w(w,v) • Minimum FAS IP • minimize  x(u,v) w(v,u) : x(u,v) · x(u,w) + x(w,v)T: x(u,v) + x(v,u) = 1I: x(u,v) 2 {0,1} LP [0,1]

  15. LPKwikSorth: 3/2 approximation u 1 h v with probability h(x(v,u)) with probability h(x(u,v)) 0 1 0

  16. Other Metrics • d(i, ) does not penalize u,v if u i v • d’(i, ) = #{u,v| u i v} • d+d’/2 metric [FKMSV 05] • d’ depends on input, not output ) 2 and 3/2 approx algorithms for d+d’/2 • Constant approx for all metrics in FKMSV 04

  17. open questions • PTAS • Is Top-m agg’ NP-Hard for k=o(n) voters? • Best of LP-KwikSort, RepeatChoice: 4/3 approx? [ACN 05]

More Related