Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Algorithms for automatic ranking of participants and tasks in an anonymized contest

Published: 15 October 2019 Publication History

Abstract

We introduce a new set of problems based on the Chain Editing problem. In our version of Chain Editing, we are given a set of participants and a set of tasks that every participant attempts. For each participant-task pair, we know whether the participant has succeeded at the task or not. We assume that participants vary in their ability to solve tasks, and that tasks vary in their difficulty to be solved. In an ideal world, stronger participants should succeed at a superset of tasks that weaker participants succeed at. Similarly, easier tasks should be completed successfully by a superset of participants who succeed at harder tasks. In reality, it can happen that a stronger participant fails at a task that a weaker participant succeeds at. Our goal is to find a perfect nesting of the participant-task relations by flipping a minimum number of participant-task relations, implying such a “nearest perfect ordering” to be the one that is closest to the truth of participant strengths and task difficulties. Many variants of the problem are known to be NP-hard.
We propose six natural k-near versions of the Chain Editing problem and classify their complexity. The input to a k-near Chain Editing problem includes an initial ordering of the participants (or tasks) that the final solution is required to be “close” to, by moving each participant (or task) at most k positions from the initial ordering. We obtain surprising results on the complexity of the six k-near problems: Five of the problems are polynomial-time solvable using dynamic programming, but one of them is NP-hard.

References

[1]
A. Agrawal, P. Klein, R. Ravi, Cutting down on fill using nested dissection: provably good elimination orderings, in: Graph Theory and Sparse Matrix Computation, Springer, 1993, pp. 31–55.
[2]
R. Andersen, C. Borgs, J. Chayes, U. Feige, A. Flaxman, A. Kalai, V. Mirrokni, M. Tennenholtz, Trust-based recommendation systems: an axiomatic approach, in: WWW, ACM, 2008, pp. 199–208.
[3]
B. Aydin, Y. Yilmaz, Y. Li, Q. Li, J. Gao, M. Demirbas, Crowdsourcing for multiple-choice question answering, in: IAAI, 2014, pp. 2946–2953.
[4]
E. Balas, N. Simonetti, Linear time dynamic-programming algorithms for new classes of restricted TSPs: a computational study, INFORMS J. Comput. 13 (2000) 56–75.
[5]
D.P. Bertsekas, Non-linear Programming, Athena Scientific, 1999.
[6]
I. Bliznets, M. Cygan, P. Komosa, L. Mach, M. Pilipczuk, Lower bounds for the parameterized complexity of minimum fill-in and other completion problems, in: SODA, 2016, pp. 1132–1151.
[7]
Y. Cao, D. Marx, Chordal editing is fixed-parameter tractable, Algorithmica 75 (2016) 118–137.
[8]
Cao, Y.; Sandeep, R.B. (2016): Minimum fill-in: inapproximability and almost tight lower bounds. CoRR arXiv:1606.08141.
[9]
X.L. Dong, L. Berti-Equille, D. Srivastava, Integrating conflicting data: the role of source dependence, Proc. VLDB Endow. 2 (2009) 550–561.
[10]
P.G. Drange, M.S. Dregi, D. Lokshtanov, B.D. Sullivan, On the threshold of intractability, in: ESA, 2015, pp. 411–423.
[11]
T. Feder, H. Mannila, E. Terzi, Approximating the minimum chain completion problem, Inform. Process. Lett. 109 (2009) 980–985.
[12]
F.V. Fomin, Y. Villanger, Subexponential parameterized algorithm for minimum fill-in, in: SODA, 2012, pp. 1737–1746.
[13]
A. Galland, S. Abiteboul, A. Marian, P. Senellart, Corroborating information from disagreeing views, in: WSDM, ACM, 2010, pp. 131–140.
[14]
W. Gatterbauer, D. Suciu, Data conflict resolution using trust mappings, in: SIGMOD, 2010, pp. 219–230.
[15]
M. Gupta, J. Han, Heterogeneous network-based trust analysis: a survey, SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 13 (2011) 54–71.
[16]
Y. Jiao, R. Ravi, W. Gatterbauer, Algorithms for automatic ranking of participants and tasks in an anonymized contest, in: WALCOM, 2017, pp. 335–346.
[17]
H. Kaplan, R. Shamir, R.E. Tarjan, Tractability of parameterized completion problems on chordal, strongly chordal, and proper interval graphs, SIAM J. Comput. 28 (1999) 1906–1922.
[18]
J.M. Kleinberg, Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment, J. ACM 46 (1999) 604–632.
[19]
Q. Li, Y. Li, J. Gao, B. Zhao, W. Fan, J. Han, Resolving conflicts in heterogeneous data by truth discovery and source reliability estimation, in: SIGMOD, 2014, pp. 1187–1198.
[20]
Y. Li, J. Gao, C. Meng, Q. Li, L. Su, B. Zhao, W. Fan, J. Han, A survey on truth discovery, SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 17 (2015) 1–16.
[21]
A. Natanzon, R. Shamir, R. Sharan, A polynomial approximation algorithm for the minimum fill-in problem, SIAM J. Comput. 30 (2000) 1067–1079.
[22]
J. Pasternack, D. Roth, Knowing what to believe (when you already know something), in: COLING, 2010, pp. 877–885.
[23]
J. Pasternack, D. Roth, Latent credibility analysis, in: WWW, 2013, pp. 1009–1021.
[24]
J. Pasternack, D. Roth, V.V. Vydiswaran, Information trustworthiness, in: AAAI Tutorial, 2013.
[25]
Y.L. Wu, P. Austrin, T. Pitassi, D. Liu, Inapproximability of treewidth, one-shot pebbling, and related layout problems, J. Artificial Intelligence Res. 49 (2014) 569–600.
[26]
M. Yannakakis, Computing the minimum fill-in is NP-complete, SIAM J. Algebr. Discrete Methods 2 (1981) 77–79.
[27]
X. Yin, J. Han, P.S. Yu, Truth discovery with multiple conflicting information providers on the web, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 20 (2008) 796–808.

Index Terms

  1. Algorithms for automatic ranking of participants and tasks in an anonymized contest
      Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image Theoretical Computer Science
      Theoretical Computer Science  Volume 789, Issue C
      Oct 2019
      93 pages

      Publisher

      Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd.

      United Kingdom

      Publication History

      Published: 15 October 2019

      Author Tags

      1. Chain Editing
      2. Chain Addition
      3. Truth discovery
      4. Massively open online classes
      5. Student evaluation

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • 0
        Total Citations
      • 0
        Total Downloads
      • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
      Reflects downloads up to 04 Oct 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      View Options

      View options

      Get Access

      Login options

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media