Journal of Combinatorial Optimization

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 310–332 | Cite as

The nearest neighbor Spearman footrule distance for bucket, interval, and partial orders

  • Franz J. Brandenburg
  • Andreas Gleißner
  • Andreas Hofmeier
Article

Abstract

Comparing and ranking information is an important topic in social and information sciences, and in particular on the web. Its objective is to measure the difference of the preferences of voters on a set of candidates and to compute a consensus ranking. Commonly, each voter provides a total order of all candidates. Recently, this approach was generalized to bucket orders, which allow ties.

In this work we further generalize and consider total, bucket, interval and partial orders. The disagreement between two orders is measured by the nearest neighbor Spearman footrule distance, which has not been studied so far. For two bucket orders and for a total and an interval order the nearest neighbor Spearman footrule distance is shown to be computable in linear time, whereas for a total and a partial order the computation is NP-hard, 4-approximable and fixed-parameter tractable.

Moreover, in contrast to the well-known efficient solution of the rank aggregation problem for total orders, we prove the NP-completeness for bucket orders and establish a 4-approximation.

Keywords

Ranking Rank aggregation Partial orders Spearman footrule distance Fixed-parameter tractability 

References

  1. Ailon N (2010) Aggregation of partial rankings, p-ratings and top-m lists. Algorithmica 57(2):284–300 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aslam JA, Montague MH (2001) Models for metasearch. In: Proc of the 24th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR). ACM Press, New York, pp 275–284 Google Scholar
  3. Bartholdi JJ III, Tovey CA, Trick MA (1989) Voting schemes for which it can be difficult to tell who won the election. Soc Choice Welf 6(2):157–165 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bessy S, Fomin FV, Gaspers S, Paul C, Perez A, Saurabh S, Thomassé S (2011) Kernels for feedback arc set in tournaments. J Comput Syst Sci 77(6):1071–1078 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betzler N, Dorn B (2010) Towards a dichotomy for the possible winner problem in elections based on scoring rules. J Comput Syst Sci 76(8):812–836 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biedl T, Brandenburg FJ, Deng X (2009) On the complexity of crossings in permutations. Discrete Math 309(7):1813–1823 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borda JC (1781) Mémoire aux les élections au scrutin Google Scholar
  8. Brandenburg FJ, Gleißner A, Hofmeier A (2011) The nearest neighbor Spearman footrule distance for bucket, interval, and partial orders. In: Proc of the 5th international frontiers of algorithmics workshop and the 7th international conference on algorithmic aspects of information and management (FAW-AAIM). LNCS, vol 6681. Springer, Berlin, pp 352–363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brandenburg FJ, Gleißner A, Hofmeier A (2012) Comparing and aggregating partial orders with Kendall tau distances. In: Proc of the 6th international workshop on algorithms and computation (WALCOM). LNCS. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar
  10. Cohen WW, Schapire RE, Singer Y (1999) Learning to order things. J Artif Intell Res 10:243–270 MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Condorcet MJ (1785) Éssai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probalité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix Google Scholar
  12. Critchlow DE (1985) Metric methods for analyzing partially ranked data. In: Lecture Notes in Statistics, vol 34. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar
  13. Diaconis P, Graham RL (1977) Spearman’s footrule as a measure of disarray. J R Stat Soc B 39:262–268 MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Dom M, Guo J, Hüffner F, Niedermeier R, TrußA (2010) Fixed-parameter tractability results for feedback set problems in tournaments. J Discrete Algorithms 8(1):76–86 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Downey RG, Fellows MR (1999) Parameterized complexity. Monographs in computer science. Springer, Berlin CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dwork C, Kumar R, Naor M, Sivakumar D (2001) Rank aggregation methods for the web. In: Proc of the 10th international world wide web conference (WWW), pp 613–622 Google Scholar
  17. Fagin R, Kumar R, Sivakumar D (2003) Comparing top k lists. SIAM J Discrete Math 17(1):134–160 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fagin R, Kumar R, Mahdian M, Sivakumar D, Vee E (2006) Comparing partial rankings. SIAM J Discrete Math 20(3):628–648 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garey MR, Johnson DS (1990) Computers and intractability: a guide to the theory of NP-completeness. W.H. Freeman, New York Google Scholar
  20. Hausdorff F (1978) Set theory (reprint). Chelsea, New York Google Scholar
  21. Hemaspaandra E, Hemaspaandra LA, Rothe J (1997) Exact analysis of Dodgson elections: Lewis Carroll’s 1876 voting system is complete for parallel access to NP. J ACM 44(6):806–825 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lebanon G, Lafferty JD (2002) Cranking: combining rankings using conditional probability models on permutations. In: Proc of the 19th international conference on machine learning (ICML). Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, pp 363–370 Google Scholar
  23. Lullus R (1283) Artifitium electionis personarum Google Scholar
  24. Montague MH, Aslam JA (2002) Condorcet fusion for improved retrieval. In: Proc of the 2002 ACM international conference on information and knowledge management (CIKM). ACM Press, New York, pp 538–548 Google Scholar
  25. Niedermeier R (2006) Invitation to fixed-parameter algorithms. Oxford University Press, London MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Renda ME, Straccia U (2003) Web metasearch: rank vs. score based rank aggregation methods. In: Proc of the 2003 ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC). ACM Press, New York, pp 841–846 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sese J, Morishita S (2001) Rank aggregation method for biological databases. Genome Inform 12:506–507 Google Scholar
  28. Xia L, Conitzer V (2008) Determining possible and necessary winners under common voting rules given partial orders. In: Proc of the 23rd AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, pp 196–201 Google Scholar
  29. Yager RR, Kreinovich V (1999) On how to merge sorted lists coming from different web search tools. Soft Comput 3(2):83–88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franz J. Brandenburg
    • 1
  • Andreas Gleißner
    • 1
  • Andreas Hofmeier
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Science and MathematicsUniversity of PassauPassauGermany

Personalised recommendations