skip to main content
10.1145/2838931.2838937acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesadcsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

The effect of assessor coverage and assessor accuracy on rank aggregation precision

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 December 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Rank aggregation is the process of aggregating multiple rankings provided by multiple assessors, of a given set of items, into a single ranking. Each assessor, whether it be human or computer based, is a resource that we use to obtain the multiple rankings. The accuracy of the aggregated ranking depends on the accuracy of the assessor ranking and the assessor coverage of the items. Our question is, given limited assessment resources, should each assessor rank many items to obtain item coverage, spending little time on each item, or should each assessor rank only a few items, but spend more time on each item to obtain a high accuracy ranking? In this article, we take a first step towards answering this question, by developing a model, based on simulation, showing the effect of the number of items assigned to an assessor and the accuracy of the assessment on the precision of the aggregated ranking. We find that when using Binomial allocation of items to assessors, increasing the assessor accuracy provides a greater increase in aggregated rank accuracy.

References

  1. N. Ailon. Aggregation of partial rankings, p-ratings and top-m lists. Algorithmica, 57(2):284--300, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. N. Ailon, M. Charikar, and A. Newman. Aggregating inconsistent information: ranking and clustering. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 55(5):23, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. R. Arora and M. Meila. Consensus ranking with signed permutations. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 117--125, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. C. Dwork, R. Kumar, M. Naor, and D. Sivakumar. Rank aggregation methods for the web. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 613--622. ACM, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J. Friedman, T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, et al. Additive logistic regression: a statistical view of boosting (with discussion and a rejoinder by the authors). The annals of statistics, 28(2):337--407, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. D. F. Gleich and L.-h. Lim. Rank aggregation via nuclear norm minimization. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 60--68. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. J. Guiver and E. Snelson. Bayesian inference for plackett-luce ranking models. In proceedings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning, pages 377--384. ACM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. D. S. Hochbaum. Ranking sports teams and the inverse equal paths problem. In Internet and Network Economics, pages 307--318. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. A. Klementiev, D. Roth, and K. Small. Unsupervised rank aggregation with distance-based models. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning, pages 472--479. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. S. Negahban, S. Oh, and D. Shah. Iterative ranking from pair-wise comparisons. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 2474--2482, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. L. A. F. Park and G. Stone. Inducing controlled error over variable length ranked lists. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, volume 8444 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 259--270. Springer International Publishing, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. The effect of assessor coverage and assessor accuracy on rank aggregation precision

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      ADCS '15: Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Document Computing Symposium
      December 2015
      72 pages
      ISBN:9781450340403
      DOI:10.1145/2838931

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 8 December 2015

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      ADCS '15 Paper Acceptance Rate5of14submissions,36%Overall Acceptance Rate30of57submissions,53%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader