We develop new voting mechanisms for the case when voters and candidates are located in an arbitrary unknown metric space, and the goal is to choose a candidate minimizing social cost: the total distance from the voters to this candidate. Previous work has often assumed that only ordinal preferences of the voters are known (instead of their true costs), and focused on minimizing distortion: the quality of the chosen candidate as compared with the best possible candidate. In this paper, we instead assume that a (very small) amount of information is known about the voter preference strengths, not just about their ordinal preferences. We provide mechanisms with much better distortion when this extra information is known as compared to mechanisms which use only ordinal information. We quantify tradeoffs between the amount of information known about preference strengths and the achievable distortion. We further provide advice about which type of information about preference strengths seems to be the most useful. Finally, we conclude by quantifying the ideal candidate distortion, which compares the quality of the chosen outcome with the best possible candidate that could ever exist, instead of only the best candidate that is actually in the running.
Attempts to exploit preference strength information have led to various approaches for modeling, eliciting, measuring, and aggregating people's preference intensities in a variety of fields, including Likert scales, semantic differential scales, sliders, constant sum paired comparisons, graded pair comparisons, response times, willingness to pay, vote buying, and many others (see @cite_26 @cite_21 @cite_12 for summaries). In our work we specifically consider only a small amount of coarse information about preference strengths, since obtaining detailed information is extremely difficult. Intuitively, any rule used to aggregate preference strengths must ask under what circumstances an apathetic majority' should win over a more passionate minority @cite_10 , and we provide a partial answer to this question when the objective is to minimize distortion.
@cite_26 @cite_10 @cite_21 @cite_12
2081359028 2316958765 1971181796 2890914144
Voting is a way to aggregate individual voters' preferences. Traditionally a voter's preference is represented by a total order on the set of candidates. However, sometimes one may not have complete information about a voter's preference, and in this case, can only model a voter's preference as a partial order. Given this framework, there has been work on computing the possible and necessary winners of a (partial) profile. In this paper, we take a step further, look at sets of questions to ask in order to determine the outcome of such a partial profile. Specifically, we call a set of questions a deciding set for a candidate if the outcome of the vote for the candidate is determined no matter how the questions are answered by the voters, and a possible winning (losing) set if there is a way to answer these questions to make the candidate a winner (loser) of the vote. We discuss some interesting properties about these sets of queries, prove some complexity results about them under some well-known voting rules such as plurality and Borda, and consider their application in vote elicitation. Voting is a general method for aggregating the preferences of multiple agents. Each agent ranks all the possible alternatives, and based on this, an aggregate ranking of the alternatives (or at least a winning alternative) is produced. However, when there are many alternatives, it is impractical to simply ask agents to report their complete preferences. Rather, the agents' preferences, or at least the relevant parts thereof, need to be elicited. This is done by asking the agents a (hopefully small) number of simple queries about their preferences, such as comparison queries, which ask an agent to compare two of the alternatives. Prior work on preference elicitation in voting has focused on the case of unrestricted preferences. It has been shown that in this setting, it is sometimes necessary to ask each agent (almost) as many queries as would be required to determine an arbitrary ranking of the alternatives. In contrast, in this paper, we focus on single-peaked preferences. We show that such preferences can be elicited using only a linear number of comparison queries, if either the order with respect to which preferences are single-peaked is known, or at least one other agent's complete preferences are known. We show that using a sublinear number of queries does not suffice. We also consider the case of cardinally single-peaked preferences. For this case, we show that if the alternatives' cardinal positions are known, then an agent's preferences can be elicited using only a logarithmic number of queries; however, we also show that if the cardinal positions are not known, then a sublinear number of queries does not suffice. We present experimental results for all elicitation algorithms. We also consider the problem of only eliciting enough information to determine the aggregate ranking, and show that even for this more modest objective, a sublinear number of queries per agent does not suffice for known ordinal or unknown cardinal positions. Finally, we discuss whether and how these techniques can be applied when preferences are almost single-peaked. Preferences can be aggregated using voting rules. We consider here the family of rules which perform a sequence of pairwise majority comparisons between two candidates. The winner thus depends on the chosen sequence of comparisons, which can be represented by a binary tree. We address the difficulty of computing candidates that win for some trees, and then introduce and study the notion of fair winner, i.e. candidates who win in a balanced tree. We then consider the situation where we lack complete informations about preferences, and determine the computational complexity of computing winners in this case. The Internet gives individuals more choice in political news and information sources and more tools to filter out disagreeable information. Citing the preference described by selective exposure theory — people prefer information that supports their beliefs and avoid counter-attitudinal information — observers warn that people may use these tools to access only agreeable information and thus live in ideological echo chambers. We report on a field deployment of a browser extension that showed users feedback about the political lean of their weekly and all time reading behaviors. Compared to a control group, showing feedback led to a modest move toward balanced exposure, corresponding to 1-2 visits per week to ideologically opposing sites or 5-10 additional visits per week to centrist sites. With the tremendous amount of research publications, recommending relevant papers to researchers to fulfill their information need becomes a significant problem. The major challenge to be tackled by our work is that given a target paper, how to effectively recommend a set of relevant papers from an existing citation network. In this paper, we propose a novel method to address the problem by incorporating various citation relations for a proper set of papers, which are more relevant but with a very limited size. The proposed method has two unique properties. Firstly, a metric called Local Relation Strength is defined to measure the dependency between cited and citing papers. Secondly, a model called Global Relation Strength is proposed to capture the relevance between two papers in the whole citation graph. We evaluate our proposed model on a real-world publication dataset and conduct an extensive comparison with the state-of-the-art baseline methods. The experimental results demonstrate that our method can have a promising improvement over the state-of-the-art techniques. While voting schemes provide an effective means for aggregating preferences, methods for the effective elicitation of voter preferences have received little attention. We address this problem by first considering approximate winner determination when incomplete voter preferences are provided. Exploiting natural scoring metrics, we use max regret to measure the quality or robustness of proposed winners, and develop polynomial time algorithms for computing the alternative with minimax regret for several popular voting rules. We then show how minimax regret can be used to effectively drive incremental preference vote elicitation and devise several heuristics for this process. Despite worst-case theoretical results showing that most voting protocols require nearly complete voter preferences to determine winners, we demonstrate the practical effectiveness of regret-based elicitation for determining both approximate and exact winners on several real-world data sets. Data in the form of pairwise comparisons arises in many domains, including preference elicitation, sporting competitions, and peer grading among others. We consider parametric ordinal models for such pairwise comparison data involving a latent vector w* e Rd that represents the "qualities" of the d items being compared; this class of models includes the two most widely used parametric models|the Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) and the Thurstone models. Working within a standard minimax framework, we provide tight upper and lower bounds on the optimal error in estimating the quality score vector w* under this class of models. The bounds depend on the topology of the comparison graph induced by the subset of pairs being compared, via the spectrum of the Laplacian of the comparison graph. Thus, in settings where the subset of pairs may be chosen, our results provide principled guidelines for making this choice. Finally, we compare these error rates to those under cardinal measurement models and show that the error rates in the ordinal and cardinal settings have identical scalings apart from constant pre-factors. Data in the form of pairwise comparisons arises in many domains, including preference elicitation, sporting competitions, and peer grading among others. We consider parametric ordinal models for such pairwise comparison data involving a latent vector @math that represents the "qualities" of the @math items being compared; this class of models includes the two most widely used parametric models--the Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) and the Thurstone models. Working within a standard minimax framework, we provide tight upper and lower bounds on the optimal error in estimating the quality score vector @math under this class of models. The bounds depend on the topology of the comparison graph induced by the subset of pairs being compared via its Laplacian spectrum. Thus, in settings where the subset of pairs may be chosen, our results provide principled guidelines for making this choice. Finally, we compare these error rates to those under cardinal measurement models and show that the error rates in the ordinal and cardinal settings have identical scalings apart from constant pre-factors. The need to rank items based on user input arises in many practical applications such as elections, group-decision making and recommendation systems. The primary challenge in such scenarios is to decide a global ranking based on partial preferences provides by users. The standard approach to address this challenge is to ask users to provide explicit numerical ratings (cardinal information) of a subset of items. The main appeal of such an approach is the ease of aggregation. However, the rating scale as well as the individual ratings are often arbitrary and may not be consistent from one user to another. A more natural alternative to numerical ratings requires users to compare pairs of items (ordinal information). In contrast to cardinal information, such comparisons provide an “absolute” indicator of the user's preference. However, it is often hard to combine or aggregate comparisons to obtain a consistent global ranking. In this work, we provide a tractable framework for utilizing comparison data as well as first-order marginal information for the purpose of ranking. We treat the available information as partial samples from an unknown distribution over permutations. Using the Principle of Maximum Entropy, we devise a concise parameterization of distribution consistent with observations using only O(n2) parameters, where n is the number of items in question. We propose a distributed, iterative algorithm for estimating the parameters of the distribution. We establish the correctness of the algorithm as well as identify the rate of convergence explicitly. Using the learnt distribution, we provide efficient approach to (a) learn the mode of the distribution using ‘maximum weight matching’, (b) identification of top k items, and (c) an aggregate ranking of all n items. Through evaluation of our approach on real-data, we verify effectiveness of our solutions as well as the scalability of the algorithm. A citing sentence is one that appears in a scientific article and cites previous work. Citing sentences have been studied and used in many applications. For example, they have been used in scientific paper summarization, automatic survey generation, paraphrase identification, and citation function classification. Citing sentences that cite multiple papers are common in scientific writing. This observation should be taken into consideration when using citing sentences in applications. For instance, when a citing sentence is used in a summary of a scientific paper, only the fragments of the sentence that are relevant to the summarized paper should be included in the summary. In this paper, we present and compare three different approaches for identifying the fragments of a citing sentence that are related to a given target reference. Our methods are: word classification, sequence labeling, and segment classification. Our experiments show that segment classification achieves the best results. This paper explores the preference-based top- @math rank aggregation problem. Suppose that a collection of items is repeatedly compared in pairs, and one wishes to recover a consistent ordering that emphasizes the top- @math ranked items, based on partially revealed preferences. We focus on the Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) model that postulates a set of latent preference scores underlying all items, where the odds of paired comparisons depend only on the relative scores of the items involved. We characterize the minimax limits on identifiability of top- @math ranked items, in the presence of random and non-adaptive sampling. Our results highlight a separation measure that quantifies the gap of preference scores between the @math and @math ranked items. The minimum sample complexity required for reliable top- @math ranking scales inversely with the separation measure irrespective of other preference distribution metrics. To approach this minimax limit, we propose a nearly linear-time ranking scheme, called , that returns the indices of the top- @math items in accordance to a careful score estimate. In a nutshell, Spectral MLE starts with an initial score estimate with minimal squared loss (obtained via a spectral method), and then successively refines each component with the assistance of coordinate-wise MLEs. Encouragingly, Spectral MLE allows perfect top- @math item identification under minimal sample complexity. The practical applicability of Spectral MLE is further corroborated by numerical experiments. This paper explores the preference-based top-K rank aggregation problem. Suppose that a collection of items is repeatedly compared in pairs, and one wishes to recover a consistent ordering that emphasizes the top-K ranked items, based on partially revealed preferences. We focus on the Bradley-Terry-Luce model that postulates a set of latent preference scores underlying all items, where the odds of paired comparisons depend only on the relative scores of the items involved. We characterize the minimax limits on identifiability of top-K ranked items, in the presence of random and non-adaptive sampling. Our results highlight a separation measure that quantifies the gap of preference scores between the Kth and (K + 1)th ranked items. The minimum sample complexity required for reliable top-K ranking scales inversely with the separation measure. To approach this minimax limit, we propose a nearly linear-time ranking scheme, called Spectral MLE, that returns the indices of the top-K items in accordance to a careful score estimate. In a nutshell, Spectral MLE starts with an initial score estimate with minimal squared loss (obtained via a spectral method), and then successively refines each component with the assistance of coordinate-wise MLEs. Encouragingly, Spectral MLE allows perfect top-K item identification under minimal sample complexity. The practical applicability of Spectral MLE is further corroborated by numerical experiments. Usually a voting rule requires agents to give their preferences as linear orders. However, in some cases it is impractical for an agent to give a linear order over all the alternatives. It has been suggested to let agents submit partial orders instead. Then, given a voting rule, a profile of partial orders, and an alternative (candidate) c, two important questions arise: first, is it still possible for c to win, and second, is c guaranteed to win? These are the possible winner and necessary winner problems, respectively. Each of these two problems is further divided into two sub-problems: determining whether c is a unique winner (that is, c is the only winner), or determining whether c is a co-winner (that is, c is in the set of winners). We consider the setting where the number of alternatives is unbounded and the votes are unweighted. We completely characterize the complexity of possible necessary winner problems for the following common voting rules: a class of positional scoring rules (including Borda), Copeland, maximin, Bucklin, ranked pairs, voting trees, and plurality with runoff. This article revisits the problem of preference intensity modelling by proposing and analysing the novel concept of preference intensity functions. These retain what are argued to be the most essential properties expected from the consistent numerical representation of preference intensity orderings and the ordinary preferences induced by them. Their existence is characterized by simple and clearly interpretable axioms, while they are also shown to be genuinely ordinally unique and more general than utility functions associated with utility-difference representations. The empirical content of this model is then pinned down by means of a testable, intuitive and comparatively weak necessary and sufficient condition on observable behavioural data. In line with recent developments in the literature, these data are assumed to include choices and an additional variable foregone resource with intensity-revealing potential such as response times, willingness to pay or desirability ratings. Personalization of e-services poses new challenges to database technology, demanding a powerful and flexible modeling technique for complex preferences. Preference queries have to be answered cooperatively by treating preferences as soft constraints, attempting a best possible match-making. We propose a strict partial order semantics for preferences, which closely matches people's intuition. A variety of natural and of sophisticated preferences are covered by this model. We show how to inductively construct complex preferences by means of various preference constructors. This model is the key to a new discipline called preference engineering and to a preference algebra. Given the Best-Matches-Only (BMO) query model we investigate how complex preference queries can be decomposed into simpler ones, preparing the ground for divide & conquer algorithms. Standard SQL and XPATH can be extended seamlessly by such preferences (presented in detail in the companion paper [15]). We believe that this model is appropriate to extend database technology towards effective support of personalization. Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The concern of privacy has become an important issue for online social networks. In services such as Foursquare.com, whether a person likes an article is considered private and therefore not disclosed; only the aggregative statistics of articles (i.e., how many people like this article) is revealed. This paper tries to answer a question: can we predict the opinion holder in a heterogeneous social network without any labeled data? This question can be generalized to a link prediction with aggregative statistics problem. This paper devises a novel unsupervised framework to solve this problem, including two main components: (1) a three-layer factor graph model and three types of potential functions; (2) a ranked-margin learning and inference algorithm. Finally, we evaluate our method on four diverse prediction scenarios using four datasets: preference (Foursquare), repost (Twitter), response (Plurk), and citation (DBLP). We further exploit nine unsupervised models to solve this problem as baselines. Our approach not only wins out in all scenarios, but on the average achieves 9.90 AUC and 12.59 NDCG improvement over the best competitors. The resources are available at http: www.csie.ntu.edu.tw d97944007 aggregative Stated preference elicitation techniques, such as discrete choice experiments and best-worst scaling, are now widely used in health research to explore the public’s choices and preferences. In this paper, we propose an alternative stated preference elicitation technique, which we refer to as ‘trio-wise’. We explain this new technique, its relative advantages, modeling framework, and how it compares to the best-worst scaling method. To better illustrate the differences and similarities, we utilize best-worst scaling Case 2, where individuals make best and worst (most and least) choices for the attribute levels that describe a single profile. We demonstrate this new preference elicitation technique using an empirical case study that explores preferences among the general public for ways to involve them in decisions concerning the health care system. Our findings show that the best-worst scaling and trio-wise preference elicitation techniques both retrieve similar preferences. However, the capability of our trio-wise method to provide additional information on the strength of rank preferences and its ability to accommodate indifferent preferences lead us to prefer it over the standard best-worst scaling technique. The question of aggregating pair-wise comparisons to obtain a global ranking over a collection of objects has been of interest for a very long time: be it ranking of online gamers (e.g. MSR's TrueSkill system) and chess players, aggregating social opinions, or deciding which product to sell based on transactions. In most settings, in addition to obtaining a ranking, finding scores' for each object (e.g. player's rating) is of interest for understanding the intensity of the preferences. In this paper, we propose Rank Centrality, an iterative rank aggregation algorithm for discovering scores for objects (or items) from pair-wise comparisons. The algorithm has a natural random walk interpretation over the graph of objects with an edge present between a pair of objects if they are compared; the score, which we call Rank Centrality, of an object turns out to be its stationary probability under this random walk. To study the efficacy of the algorithm, we consider the popular Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) model (equivalent to the Multinomial Logit (MNL) for pair-wise comparisons) in which each object has an associated score which determines the probabilistic outcomes of pair-wise comparisons between objects. In terms of the pair-wise marginal probabilities, which is the main subject of this paper, the MNL model and the BTL model are identical. We bound the finite sample error rates between the scores assumed by the BTL model and those estimated by our algorithm. In particular, the number of samples required to learn the score well with high probability depends on the structure of the comparison graph. When the Laplacian of the comparison graph has a strictly positive spectral gap, e.g. each item is compared to a subset of randomly chosen items, this leads to dependence on the number of samples that is nearly order-optimal. The old Asian legend about the blind men and the elephant comes to mind when looking at how different authors of scientific papers describe a piece of related prior work. It turns out that different citations to the same paper often focus on different aspects of that paper and that neither provides a full description of its full set of contributions. In this article, we will describe our investigation of this phenomenon. We studied citation summaries in the context of research papers in the biomedical domain. A citation summary is the set of citing sentences for a given article and can be used as a surrogate for the actual article in a variety of scenarios. It contains information that was deemed by peers to be important. Our study shows that citation summaries overlap to some extent with the abstracts of the papers and that they also differ from them in that they focus on different aspects of these papers than do the abstracts. In addition to this, co-cited articles (which are pairs of articles cited by another article) tend to be similar. We show results based on a lexical similarity metric called cohesion to justify our claims. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.