2011 49th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton) 2011
DOI: 10.1109/allerton.2011.6120246
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ranking: Compare, don't score

Abstract: 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… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For each patient, disease progression, i.e. severity over time, was evaluated twice: using mPASI score calculated from absolute scoring of every image and using similarity-clustering of pairwise relative comparisons of all pairs of images [9] . In all evaluations, patient identification and time of image capture were not revealed.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For each patient, disease progression, i.e. severity over time, was evaluated twice: using mPASI score calculated from absolute scoring of every image and using similarity-clustering of pairwise relative comparisons of all pairs of images [9] . In all evaluations, patient identification and time of image capture were not revealed.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the approximations of the Borda scores described in Sections 2.4 and 2.5 can be thought as estimates of the semantic relatedness, we rely on rankings rather than scores to avoid inconsistency issues that frequently emerge in score comparisons (Ammar and Shah, 2011;Negahban et al, 2017). Kendall (1948) proposed the quite general form for a ranking correlation coefficient…”
Section: Evaluation Metricsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…for some positive constants w min and w max . In fact, the case in which the ratio wmax wmin grows with n can be readily translated into the above setting by first separating out those items with vanishing scores (e.g., via a simple voting method like Borda count [25], [26]).…”
Section: Problem Setupmentioning
confidence: 99%