pairwise comparison
Noisy Nonreciprocal Pairwise Comparisons: Scale Variation, Noise Calibration, and Admissible Ranking Regions
Pairwise comparisons are widely used in decision analysis, preference modeling, and evaluation problems. In many practical situations, the observed comparison matrix is not reciprocal. This lack of reciprocity is often treated as a defect to be corrected immediately. In this article, we adopt a different point of view: part of the nonreciprocity may reflect a genuine variation in the evaluation scale, while another part is due to random perturbations. We introduce an additive model in which the unknown underlying comparison matrix is consistent but not necessarily reciprocal. The reciprocal component carries the global ranking information, whereas the symmetric component describes possible scale variation. Around this structured matrix, we add a random perturbation and show how to estimate the noise level, assess whether the scale variation remains moderate, and assign probabilities to admissible ranking regions in the sense of strict ranking by pairwise comparisons. We also compare this approach with the brutal projection onto reciprocal matrices, which suppresses all symmetric information at once. The Gaussian perturbation model is used here not because human decisions are exactly Gaussian, but because observed judgment errors often result from the accumulation of many small effects. In such a context, the central limit principle provides a natural heuristic justification for Gaussian noise. This makes it possible to derive explicit estimators and probability assessments while keeping the model interpretable for decision problems.
- South America > Argentina > Patagonia > Río Negro Province > Viedma (0.04)
- North America > United States > New York (0.04)
- Europe > Slovakia > Presov > Prešov (0.04)
- (2 more...)
- Europe > Germany > Rhineland-Palatinate > Kaiserslautern (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- North America > United States (0.04)
- (3 more...)
- Research Report > New Finding (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Health & Medicine (1.00)
- Leisure & Entertainment > Games > Chess (0.46)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Large Language Model (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning (0.92)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Chatbot (0.69)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (0.68)
Active preference learning for ordering items in-and out-of-sample Herman Bergström Chalmers University of Technology and University of Gothenburg hermanb@chalmers.se Emil Carlsson
Learning an ordering of items based on pairwise comparisons is useful when items are difficult to rate consistently on an absolute scale, for example, when annotators have to make subjective assessments. When exhaustive comparison is infeasible, actively sampling item pairs can reduce the number of annotations necessary for learning an accurate ordering. However, many algorithms ignore shared structure between items, limiting their sample efficiency and precluding generalization to new items. It is also common to disregard how noise in comparisons varies between item pairs, despite it being informative of item similarity. In this work, we study active preference learning for ordering items with contextual attributes, both in-and out-of-sample. We give an upper bound on the expected ordering error of a logistic preference model as a function of which items have been compared. Next, we propose an active learning strategy that samples items to minimize this bound by accounting for aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in comparisons. We evaluate the resulting algorithm, and a variant aimed at reducing model misspecification, in multiple realistic ordering tasks with comparisons made by human annotators. Our results demonstrate superior sample efficiency and generalization compared to non-contextual ranking approaches and active preference learning baselines.
- Europe > Sweden > Vaestra Goetaland > Gothenburg (0.40)
- North America > United States (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Research Report > New Finding (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Asia > South Korea > Seoul > Seoul (0.04)
- North America > United States (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston (0.04)
- North America > United States > Hawaii (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > San Diego County > San Diego (0.04)
- Asia > Myanmar > Tanintharyi Region > Dawei (0.04)
- Education (0.46)
- Banking & Finance > Economy (0.46)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Large Language Model (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Chatbot (0.82)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (0.79)
- North America > United States > Ohio (0.04)
- North America > United States > Iowa (0.04)
- North America > Canada (0.04)
- Europe > France > Pays de la Loire > Loire-Atlantique > Nantes (0.05)
- North America > Canada > Quebec > Montreal (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- (2 more...)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty > Bayesian Inference (0.46)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Learning Graphical Models > Directed Networks > Bayesian Learning (0.46)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Constraint-Based Reasoning (0.41)
- North America > United States > New York > Rensselaer County > Troy (0.04)
- North America > Canada > British Columbia > Vancouver (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > Pennsylvania > Allegheny County > Pittsburgh (0.04)
- North America > United States > New Jersey > Hudson County > Hoboken (0.04)