A ranking is an ordered sequence of items, in which an item with higher ranking score is more preferred than the items with lower ranking scores. In many information systems, rankings are widely used to represent the preferences over a set of items or candidates. The consensus measure of rankings is the problem of how to evaluate the degree to which the rankings agree. The consensus measure can be used to evaluate rankings in many information systems, as quite often there is not ground truth available for evaluation. This paper introduces a novel approach for consensus measure of rankings by using graph representation, in which the vertices or nodes are the items and the edges are the relationship of items in the rankings. Such representation leads to various algorithms for consensus measure in terms of different aspects of rankings, including the number of common patterns, the number of common patterns with fixed length and the length of the longest common patterns. The proposed measure can be adopted for various types of rankings, such as full rankings, partial rankings and rankings with ties. This paper demonstrates how the proposed approaches can be used to evaluate the quality of rank aggregation and the quality of top- @math rankings from Google and Bing search engines.
These functions are pairwise comparison and they can be transferred into consensus measure for a set @math of @math rankings by aggregating the pairwise distance values across all rankings. For example, one can use @math if the Kendall index is preferred. However, this aggregated result is not informative enough to tell the extend to which the rankings agree in @math , according to the study by @cite_23 .
@cite_23
1980940798 2160266360 182456511 1972827298
We propose a new family of distance measures on rankings, derived through an axiomatic approach, that consider the nonuniform relevance of the top and bottom of ordered lists and similarities between candidates. The proposed distance functions include specialized weighted versions of the Kendall τ distance and the Cayley distance, and are suitable for comparing rankings in a number of applications, including information retrieval and rank aggregation. In addition to proposing the distance measures and providing the theoretical underpinnings for their applications, we also analyze algorithmic and computational aspects of weighted distance-based rank aggregation. We present an aggregation method based on approximating weighted distance measures by a generalized version of Spearman's footrule distance as well as a Markov chain method inspired by PageRank, where transition probabilities of the Markov chain reflect the chosen weighted distances. Spearman's footrule and Kendall's tau are two well established distances between rankings. They, however, fail to take into account concepts crucial to evaluating a result set in information retrieval: element relevance and positional information. That is, changing the rank of a highly-relevant document should result in a higher penalty than changing the rank of an irrelevant document; a similar logic holds for the top versus the bottom of the result ordering. In this work, we extend both of these metrics to those with position and element weights, and show that a variant of the Diaconis-Graham inequality still holds - the generalized two measures remain within a constant factor of each other for all permutations. We continue by extending the element weights into a distance metric between elements. For example, in search evaluation, swapping the order of two nearly duplicate results should result in little penalty, even if these two are highly relevant and appear at the top of the list. We extend the distance measures to this more general case and show that they remain within a constant factor of each other. We conclude by conducting simple experiments on web search data with the proposed measures. Our experiments show that the weighted generalizations are more robust and consistent with each other than their unweighted counter-parts. We consider the problem of finding a ranking of a set of elements that is "closest to" a given set of input rankings of the elements; more precisely, we want to find a permutation that minimizes the Kendall-tau distance to the input rankings, where the Kendall-tau distance is defined as the sum over all input rankings of the number of pairs of elements that are in a different order in the input ranking than in the output ranking. If the input rankings are permutations, this problem is known as the Kemeny rank aggregation problem. This problem arises for example in building meta-search engines for Web search, aggregating viewers' rankings of movies, or giving recommendations to a user based on several different criteria, where we can think of having one ranking of the alternatives for each criterion. Many of the approximation algorithms and heuristics that have been proposed in the literature are either positional, comparison sort or local search algorithms. The rank aggregation problem is a special case of the (weighted) feedback arc set problem, but in the feedback arc set problem we use only information about the preferred relative ordering of pairs of elements to find a ranking of the elements, whereas in the case of the rank aggregation problem, we have additional information in the form of the complete input rankings. The positional methods are the only algorithms that use this additional information. Since the rank aggregation problem is NP-hard, none of these algorithms is guaranteed to find the optimal solution, and different algorithms will provide different solutions. We give theoretical and practical evidence that a combination of these different approaches gives algorithms that are superior to the individual algorithms. Theoretically, we give lower bounds on the performance for many of the "pure" methods. Practically, we perform an extensive evaluation of the "pure" algorithms and combinations of different approaches. We give three recommendations for which (combination of) methods to use based on whether a user wants to have a very fast, fast or reasonably fast algorithm. Many situations exist in which n objects are ranked by two or more independent sources, where interest centers primarily on agreement in the top rankings and disagreements on items at the bottom of the rankings are of little or no importance. A problem with Spearman's rho or Kendall's coefftcient of concordance in this setting is that they are equally influenced by disagreement on the assignment of rankings at all levels. In this article, a concordance measure is provided that is more sensitive to agreement on the top rankings. The statistics used in this setting are functions of the ordinary correlation coeRicient computed on Savage (1956) scores. The asymptotic distributions of these statistics are presented, and a summary of the quantiles of the exact distribution for the two sample case are provided for n = 3(1)14. The statistic for the two-sample case is shown to provide a locally most powerful rank test for a model given by Hajek and Sidak (1967).