In many areas of data mining, data is collected from humans beings. In this contribution, we ask the question of how people actually respond to ordinal scales. The main problem observed is that users tend to be volatile in their choices, i.e. complex cognitions do not always lead to the same decisions, but to distributions of possible decision outputs. This human uncertainty may sometimes have quite an impact on common data mining approaches and thus, the question of effective modelling this so called human uncertainty emerges naturally. Our contribution introduces two different approaches for modelling the human uncertainty of user responses. In doing so, we develop techniques in order to measure this uncertainty at the level of user inputs as well as the level of user cognition. With support of comprehensive user experiments and large-scale simulations, we systematically compare both methodologies along with their implications for personalisation approaches. Our findings demonstrate that significant amounts of users do submit something completely different (action) than they really have in mind (cognition). Moreover, we demonstrate that statistically sound evidence with respect to algorithm assessment becomes quite hard to realise, especially when explicit rankings shall be built.
In this article we introduce a probability distribution generated by a mixture of discrete random variables to capture uncertainty, feeling, and overdispersion, possibly present in ordinal data surveys. The choice of the components of the new model is motivated by a study on the data generating process. Inferential issues concerning the maximum likelihood estimates and the validation steps are presented; then, some empirical analyses are given to support the usefulness of the approach. Discussion on further extensions of the model ends the article.