Algorithmica

, Volume 57, Issue 2, pp 284–300 | Cite as

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

Article

Abstract

We study the problem of aggregating partial rankings. This problem is motivated by applications such as meta-searching and information retrieval, search engine spam fighting, e-commerce, learning from experts, analysis of population preference sampling, committee decision making and more. We improve recent constant factor approximation algorithms for aggregation of full rankings and generalize them to partial rankings. Our algorithms improve constant factor approximation with respect to a family of metrics recently proposed in the context of comparing partial rankings. We pay special attention to two important types of partial rankings: the well-known top-m lists and the more general p-ratings which we define. We provide first evidence for hardness of aggregating them for constant mp.

Keywords

Rank aggregation Ranking with ties Approximation algorithms 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ailon, N.: Aggregation of partial rankings, p-ratings and top-m lists. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 415–424 (2007) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ailon, N., Charikar, M.: Fitting tree metrics: Hierarchical clustering and phylogeny. In: Proceedings of the 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 73–82 (2005) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ailon, N., Charikar, M., Newman, A.: Aggregating inconsistent information: ranking and clustering. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 684–693 (2005) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ailon, N., Charikar, M., Newman, A.: Proofs of conjectures in ‘Aggregating inconsistent information: Ranking and clustering’. Technical Report, Princeton University, TR-719-05 (2005) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alon, N.: Ranking tournaments. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 20(1), 137–142 (2006) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arrow, K.J.: Social Choice and Individual Values. Wiley, New York (1951) MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aslam, J., Montague, M.: Condorcet fusion for improved retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 538–548 (2002) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borda, J.C.: Mémoire sur les élections au scrutin. Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences (1781) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Condorcet, M.-J.: Éssai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix (1785) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coppersmith, D., Fleischer, L., Rudra, A.: Ordering by weighted number of wins gives a good ranking for weighted tournamnets. In: Proceedings of the 17th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 776–782 (2006) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diaconis, P., Graham, R.: Spearman’s footrule as a measure of disarray. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 39(2), 262–268 (1977) MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., Sivakumar, D.: Rank aggregation methods for the web. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on the World Wide Web (WWW10), pp. 613–622, Hong Kong (2001) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., Sivakumar, D.: Rank aggregation revisited. Manuscript (2001) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fagin, R., Kumar, R., Mahdian, M., Sivakumar, D., Vee, E.: Comparing and aggregating rankings with ties. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp. 47–58 (2004) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fagin, R., Kumar, R., Mahdian, M., Sivakumar, D., Vee, E.: Comparing partial rankings. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 20(3), 628–648 (2006) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fagin, R., Kumar, R., Sivakumar, D.: Comparing top k lists. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 28–36, Baltimore (2003) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fagin, R., Kumar, R., Sivakumar, D.: Efficient similarity search and classification via rank aggregation. In: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 301–312, San Diego (2003) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Filkov, V., Skiena, S.: Integrating microarray data by consensus clustering. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), pp. 418–425, Sacramento (2003) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gionis, A., Mannila, H., Tsaparas, P.: Clustering aggregation. TKDD 1(1) (2007) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hodge, J., Klima, R.E.: The Mathematics of Voting and Elections: A Hands-On Approach. Mathematical World, vol. 22. Am. Math. Soc., Providence (2000) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kemeny, J., Snell, J.: Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences. Blaisdell, Boston (1962). Reprinted by MIT Press, Cambridge (1972) MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kemeny, J.G.: Mathematics without numbers. Daedalus 88, 571–591 (1959) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kendall, M., Gibbons, J.D.: Rank Correlation Methods. Arnold, Sevenoaks (1990) MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kenyon-Mathieu, C., Schudy, W.: How to rank with few errors. In: STOC’07: Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 95–103. Assoc. Comput. Mach., New York, 2007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rand, W.: Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 66(336), 846–850 (1971) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Strehl, A.: Relationship-based clustering and cluster ensembles for high-dimensional data mining. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, May 2002 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wakabayashi, Y.: The complexity of computing medians of relations. Resenhas 3(3), 323–349 (1998) MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Google ResearchNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations