Abstract
In experimental psychology, the method of paired comparisons was proposed as a means for ranking preferences amongst n elements of a human subject. The method requires performing all \(\binom{n}{2}\) comparisons then sorting elements according to the number of wins. The large number of comparisons is performed to counter the potentially faulty decision-making of the human subject, who acts as an imprecise comparator.
We consider a simple model of the imprecise comparisons: there exists some δ> 0 such that when a subject is given two elements to compare, if the values of those elements (as perceived by the subject) differ by at least δ, then the comparison will be made correctly; when the two elements have values that are within δ, the outcome of the comparison is unpredictable. This δ corresponds to the just noticeable difference unit (JND) or difference threshold in the psychophysics literature, but does not require the statistical assumptions used to define this value.
In this model, the standard method of paired comparisons minimizes the errors introduced by the imprecise comparisons at the cost of \(\binom{n}{2}\) comparisons. We show that the same optimal guarantees can be achieved using 4 n 3/2 comparisons, and we prove the optimality of our method. We then explore the general tradeoff between the guarantees on the error that can be made and number of comparisons for the problems of sorting, max-finding, and selection. Our results provide close-to-optimal solutions for each of these problems.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aggarwal, G., Ailon, N., Constantin, F., Even-Dar, E., Feldman, J., Frahling, G., Henzinger, M.R., Muthukrishnan, S., Nisan, N., Pál, M., Sandler, M., Sidiropoulos, A.: Theory research at Google. SIGACT News 39(2), 10–28 (2008)
Assaf, S., Upfal, E.: Fault tolerant sorting networks. SIAM J. Discrete Math 4(4), 472–480 (1991)
Ben-Or, M., Hassidim, A.: The bayesian learner is optimal for noisy binary search (and pretty good for quantum as well). In: FOCS, pp. 221–230 (2008)
Blum, M., Floyd, R.W., Pratt, V.R., Rivest, R.L., Tarjan, R.E.: Time bounds for selection. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 7(4), 448–461 (1973)
Bollobás, B., Thomason, A.: Parallel sorting. Discrete Appl. Math. 6, 1–11 (1983)
Borgstrom, R.S., Kosaraju, S.R.: Comparison-based search in the presence of errors. In: STOC, pp. 130–136 (1993)
Cormen, T.H., Leiserson, C.E., Rivest, R.L., Stein, C.: Introduction to Algorithms, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)
David, H.A.: The Method of Paired Comparisons, 2nd edn. Charles Griffin & Company Limited (1988)
Feige, U., Raghavan, P., Peleg, D., Upfal, E.: Computing with noisy information. SIAM J. Comput. 23(5) (1994)
Finocchi, I., Grandoni, F., Italiano, G.F.: Optimal resilient sorting and searching in the presence of memory faults. In: Bugliesi, M., Preneel, B., Sassone, V., Wegener, I. (eds.) ICALP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4051, pp. 286–298. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Finocchi, I., Italiano, G.F.: Sorting and searching in the presence of memory faults (without redundancy). In: STOC, pp. 101–110 (2004)
Gasarch, W.I., Golub, E., Kruskal, C.P.: Constant time parallel sorting: an empirical view. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 67(1), 63–91 (2003)
Häggkvist, R., Hell, P.: Parallel sorting with constant time for comparisons. SIAM J. Comput. 10(3), 465–472 (1981)
Häggkvist, R., Hell, P.: Sorting and merging in rounds. SIAM Journal on Algebraic and Discrete Methods 3(4), 465–473 (1982)
Karp, R.M., Kleinberg, R.: Noisy binary search and its applications. In: SODA, pp. 881–890 (2007)
Pelc, A.: Searching games with errors—fifty years of coping with liars. Theor. Comput. Sci. 270(1-2), 71–109 (2002)
Ravikumar, B., Ganesan, K., Lakshmanan, K.B.: On selecting the largest element in spite of erroneous information. In: Brandenburg, F.J., Wirsing, M., Vidal-Naquet, G. (eds.) STACS 1987. LNCS, vol. 247, pp. 88–99. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)
Rényi, A.: On a problem in information theory. Magyar Tud. Akad. Mat. Kutató Int. Közl 6, 505–516 (1962)
Rivest, R.L., Meyer, A.R., Kleitman, D.J., Winklmann, K., Spencer, J.: Coping with errors in binary search procedures. J. Comput. Sys. Sci. 20(3), 396–405 (1980)
Smith, S.M., Albaum, G.S.: Fundamentals of Marketing Research, 1st edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2005)
Thurstone, L.L.: A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review 34, 273–286 (1927)
Ulam, S.M.: Adventures of a Mathematician. Scribner’s, New York (1976)
Valiant, L.G.: Parallelism in comparison problems. SIAM J. Comput. 4(3), 348–355 (1975)
Yao, A.C., Yao, F.F.: On fault-tolerant networks for sorting. SIAM J. Comput. 14(1), 120–128 (1985)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ajtai, M., Feldman, V., Hassidim, A., Nelson, J. (2009). Sorting and Selection with Imprecise Comparisons. In: Albers, S., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A., Matias, Y., Nikoletseas, S., Thomas, W. (eds) Automata, Languages and Programming. ICALP 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5555. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02927-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02927-1_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02926-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02927-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)