skip to main content
10.1145/2380718.2380721acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebsciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Synthesis ranking with critic resonance

Published:22 June 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

The existing literature on social choice and the theory of ranking has been particularly fruitful in applications to web search and online social networks. In addition, related techniques have been used to rank the importance of reviewers and critics on the web, by assigning weights associated with attributes such as influence, reach, status, or trust values. In applications of user opinion and preference data analysis, it should be considered paradoxical if users or critics with high weight values reflect opinions and preferences seen to be independent of, or in conflict with, the aggregate ranking of items. If rankings do not resonate, then that is an indication of inconsistencies, and thus the schemes used to determine rankings may need to be modified.

In this paper we present a new theoretical and algorithmic framework for formally investigating resonance between aggregate rankings of items and ratings of critics. In particular, we develop a new paradigm called synthesis ranking, which entails synthesizing an aggregate ranking and critic weighting scheme by computing resonant equilibrium points. In addition, we present an efficient, iterative technique called entrainment for computing resonant equilibrium points. Further we show that the synthesis framework can incorporate natural critic weighting attributes. Finally, we present a redundancy paradox that demonstrates support for a ranking model that uses critic weights.

References

  1. N. Ailon, M. Charikar, and A. Newman. Aggregating inconsistent information: ranking and clustering. In Proceedings of the thirty-seventh annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 684--693. ACM, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. I. Anger and C. Kittl. Measuring influence on twitter. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies, page 31. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. K. Arrow. Social choice and individual values. Number 12. Yale Univ Pr, 1963.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. E. Bakshy, J. Hofman, W. Mason, and D. Watts. Everyone's an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, pages 65--74. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. K. Berman. A graph theoretical approach to handicap ranking of tournaments and paired comparisons. SIAM Journal on Algebraic and Discrete Methods, 1:359, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. R. Bradley and M. Terry. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39(3--4):324, 1952.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. B. Carterette, P. Bennett, D. Chickering, and S. Dumais. Here or there: Preference judgments for relevance. In Proceedings of the IR research, 30th European conference on Advances in information retrieval, pages 16--27. Springer-Verlag, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. Cha, H. Haddadi, F. Benevenuto, and K. Gummadi. Measuring user influence in twitter: The million follower fallacy. In 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), pages 10--17, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. H. Daniels. Round-robin tournament scores. Biometrika, 56(2):295, 1969.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. A. Das Sarma, A. Das Sarma, S. Gollapudi, and R. Panigrahy. Ranking mechanisms in twitter-like forums. In Proceedings of the third ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, pages 21--30. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. D. Dhyani, W. Ng, and S. Bhowmick. A survey of web metrics. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 34(4):503, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. R. Dittrich, W. Katzenbeisser, and H. Reisinger. The analysis of rank ordered preference data based on Bradley-Terry Type Models. OR Spectrum, 22(1):117--134, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. C. Dwork, R. Kumar, M. Naor, and D. Sivakumar. Rank aggregation methods for the web. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 613--622. ACM, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. ESPN website. http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. R. Fagin, R. Kumar, and D. Sivakumar. Efficient similarity search and classification via rank aggregation. In Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 301--312. ACM, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. P. Fishburn. The theory of social choice, volume 264. Princeton University Press Princeton, NJ, 1973.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. P. Green and V. Srinivasan. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. Journal of consumer research, 5(2):103, 1978.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. D. Hochbaum and A. Levin. Methodologies and algorithms for group-rankings decision. Management Science, 52(9):1394, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Kleinberg. Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 46(5):604--632, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. R. Kumar and S. Vassilvitskii. Generalized distances between rankings. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, pages 571--580. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Langville and C. Meyer. A survey of eigenvector methods for web information retrieval. SIAM review, pages 135--161, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. J. Leskovec, A. Singh, and J. Kleinberg. Patterns of influence in a recommendation network. Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 380--389, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. R. Luce. Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York, 115:191--243, 1959.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. R. Luce. The choice axiom after twenty years. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3):215--233, 1977.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. J. Moon and N. Pullman. Tournaments and handicaps. In Information Processing 68 (Proc. IFIP Congress, Edinburgh, 1968), pages 219--223, 1969.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. J. Moon and N. Pullman. On generalized tournament matrices. SIAM Review, pages 384--399, 1970.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. L. Page, S. Brin, R. Motwani, and T. Winograd. The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical report, Stanford Digital Library Technologies Project, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. D. Pennock, E. Horvitz, and C. Giles. Social choice theory and recommender systems: Analysis of the axiomatic foundations of collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 729--734. AAAI Press; MIT Press; 1999, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. T. Pinch and F. Kesler. How aunt ammy gets her free lunch: A study of the top-thousand customer reviewers at amazon.com. Technical report, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. D. Romero, W. Galuba, S. Asur, and B. Huberman. Influence and passivity in social media. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference companion on World wide web, pages 113--114. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. B. Solis. Report: The rise of digital influence and how to measure it, 2012. http://www.briansolis.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. L. Thurstone. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological review, 34(4):273--286, 1927.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. L. Thurstone and E. Chave. The measurement of attitude. The University of Chicago Press Chicago, 1929.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. G. Tutz. Bradley-Terry-Luce models with an ordered response. Journal of mathematical psychology, 30(3):306--316, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Synthesis ranking with critic resonance

    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
      WebSci '12: Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference
      June 2012
      531 pages
      ISBN:9781450312288
      DOI:10.1145/2380718

      Copyright © 2012 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: 22 June 2012

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate218of875submissions,25%

      Upcoming Conference

      Websci '24
      16th ACM Web Science Conference
      May 21 - 24, 2024
      Stuttgart , Germany
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)2
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader