skip to main content
10.1145/1142473.1142517acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Context-sensitive ranking

Published:27 June 2006Publication History

ABSTRACT

Contextual preferences take the form that item i1 is preferred to item i2 in the context of X. For example, a preference might state the choice for Nicole Kidman over Penelope Cruz in drama movies, whereas another preference might choose Penelope Cruz over Nicole Kidman in the context of Spanish dramas. Various sources provide preferences independently and thus preferences may contain cycles and contradictions. We reconcile democratically the preferences accumulated from various sources and use them to create a priori orderings of tuples in an off-line preprocessing step. Only a few representative orders are saved, each corre-sponding to a set of contexts. These orders and associated contexts are used at query time to expeditiously provide ranked answers. We formally define contextual preferences, provide algorithms for creating orders and processing queries, and present experimental results that show their efficacy and practical utility.

References

  1. R. Agrawal, T. Imielinski, and A. N. Swami. Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. In SIGMOD, pages 207--216, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. R. Agrawal and E. L. Wimmers. A framework for expressing and combining preferences. In SIGMOD, pages 297--306, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. S. Agrawal, S. Chaudhuri, G. Das, and A. Gionis. Automated ranking of database query results. In CIDR, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. A. Balmin, V. Hristidis, and Y. Papakonstantinou. Objectrank: Authority-based keyword search in databases. In VLDB, pages 564--575, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. B. Berger and P. W. Shor. Approximation algorithms for the maximum acyclic subgraph problem. In SODA, pages 236--243, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. G. Bhalotia, A. Hulgeri, C. Nakhe, S. Chakrabarti, and S. Sudarshan. Keyword searching and browsing in databases using BANKS. In ICDE, pages 431--440, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. Borzsonyi, D. Kossmann, and K. Stocker. The skyline operator. In ICDE, pages 421--430, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. S. Brin and L. Page. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks, 30(1-7):107--117, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. S. Chaudhuri, G. Das, V. Hristidis, and G. Weikum. Probabilistic ranking of database query results. In VLDB, pages 888--899, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. J. Chomicki. Preference formulas in relational queries. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 28(4):427--466, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Chrobak, C. Kenyon, and N. E. Young. The reverse greedy algorithm for the metric k-median problem. In COCOON, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. W. W. Cohen, R. E. Schapire, and Y. Singer. Learning to order things. In NIPS, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. P. Diaconis and R. Graham. Spearman's footrule as a measure of disarray. J. of the Royal Statistical Society, 39(2):262--268, 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. C. Dwork, R. Kumar, M. Naor, and D. Sivakumar. Rank aggregation methods for the web. In WWW, pages 613--622, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. R. Fagin, R. Kumar, M. Mahdian, D. Sivakumar, and E. Vee. Comparing and aggregating rankings with ties. In PODS, pages 47--58, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. R. Fagin, R. Kumar, and D. Sivakumar. Comparing top k lists. In SODA, pages 28--36, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. R. Fagin, R. Kumar, and D. Sivakumar. Efficient similarity search and classification via rank aggregation. In SIGMOD, pages 301--312, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. R. Fagin, A. Lotem, and M. Naor. Optimal aggregation algorithms for middleware. In PODS, pages 102--113, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. F. Geerts, H. Mannila, and E. Terzi. Relational link-based ranking. In VLDB, pages 552--563, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. L. Guo, F. Shao, C. Botev, and J. Shanmugasundaram. XRANK: Ranked keyword search over XML documents. In SIGMOD, pages 16--27, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. T. H. Haveliwala. Topic-sensitive pagerank. In WWW, pages 517--526, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. D. S. Hochbaum and D. B. Shmoys. A best possible heuristic for the k-center problem. Mathematics of Operations Research, pages 180--184, 1985.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. A. Huang, Q. Xue, and J. Yang. Tuplerank and implicit relationship discovery in relational databases. In WAIM, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. T. Kamishima and J. Fujiki. Clustering orders. In Discovery Science, pages 194--207, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. W. KieBling. Foundations of preferences in database systems. In VLDB, pages 311--322, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. J. Kleinberg, C. Papadimitriou, and P. Raghavan. Segmentation problems. In STOC, pages 473--482, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. G. Koutrika and Y. Ioannidis. Constrained optimalities in query personalization. In SIGMOD, pages 73--84, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. G. Koutrika and Y. E. Ioannidis. Personalization of queries in database systems. In ICDE, pages 597--608, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. G. Koutrika and Y. E. Ioannidis. Personalized queries under a generalized preference model. In ICDE, pages 841--852, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. K. Kummamuru, R. Krishnapuram, and R. Agrawal. On learning assymetric dissimilarity measures. In ICDM, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. D. Papadias, Y. Tao, G. Fu, and B. Seeger. An optimal and progressive algorithm for skyline queries. In SIGMOD, pages 467--478, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. M. Richardson and P. Domingos. The intelligent surfer: Probabilistic combination of link and content information in pagerank. In NIPS, pages 1441--1448, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. M. Schultz and T. Joachims. Learning a distance metric from relative comparisons. In NIPS, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. M. Yannakakis. Edge-deletion problems. SIAM J. Comput., 10(2):297--309, 1981.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Context-sensitive ranking

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGMOD '06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data
      June 2006
      830 pages
      ISBN:1595934340
      DOI:10.1145/1142473

      Copyright © 2006 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 27 June 2006

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate785of4,003submissions,20%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader