Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3106426.3106448acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Mining ordinal data under human response uncertainty

Published: 23 August 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Analysis and interpretation of collective feedback on ordinal scales is an important issue for several disciplines, including social sciences, recommender systems research, marketing, political science, and many others. A "reasonable" model is expected to provide an "explanation" of collective user behaviour. Many existing data mining approaches employ for this purpose probabilistic models, based on distributions and mixtures from a certain parametric family.
In real life, users meet their decisions with considerable uncertainty. Its assessment and use in probabilistic models for better interpretation of collective feedback is the key concern of this paper.
In doing so, we introduce approaches for gathering individual uncertainty, and discuss their viability and limitations. Consequently, we enrich state of the art response mining models (especially focused on discovery of latent user groups) with uncertainty knowledge, and demonstrate resulting advantages in systematic experiments with real users.

References

[1]
Ying Yanga Ajit Tamhane, Bruce Ankenmana. 2002. The beta distribution as a latent response model for ordinal data: Estimation of location and dispersion parameters. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 72 (2002), 473--494. Issue 6.
[2]
Hirotogu Akaike. 1998. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike. Springer, 199--213.
[3]
Amatriain and others. 2009. Rate It Again: Increasing Recommendation Accuracy by User Re-rating. In Proceedings of the Third ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 173--180.
[4]
C. Bishop. 2006. Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer.
[5]
Richard Breen and Ruud Luijk. 2010. Mixture Models for Ordinal Data. ELSEVIER Inference 39, 1 (2010), 3--24.
[6]
Mike Burton and Dan Rigby. 2009. Hurdle and latent class approaches to serial non-participation in choice models. Environmental and Resource Economics 42, 2 (2009), 211--226.
[7]
Stefania Capecchi and Isabella Endrizzi. 2015. A multi-product approach for detecting subjects and objects covariates in consumer preferences. Preliminary Report (2015).
[8]
A. P. Dempster, N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin. 1977. Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via the EM Algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 39, 1 (1977), 1--38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2984875
[9]
D. Denison, C. Holmes, B. Mallick, and A. Smith. 2002. Bayesian methods for nonlinear classification and regression. Wiley.
[10]
Sylvia Frühwirth-Schnatter. 2006. Finite mixture and Markov switching models. Springer Science & Business Media.
[11]
Leonardo Grilli, Maria Iannario, Domenico Piccolo, and Carla Rampichini. 2013. Latent class CUB models. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification 8, 1 (2013), 105--119.
[12]
Maria Iannario. 2012. Modelling shelter choices in a class of mixture models for ordinal responses. Statistical Methods & Applications 21, 1 (2012), 1--22.
[13]
Maria Iannario and Domenico Piccolo. 2012. CUB models: Statistical methods and empirical evidence. Modern Analysis of Customer Surveys (2012), 231--258.
[14]
Helene Intraub. 1990. Presentation Rate and the Representation of Briefly Glimpsed Pictures in Memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology 6 (1990), 1--11. Issue 1.
[15]
W. A. Kruskal, W. H. und Wallis. 1952. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 47 (1952), 583--621.
[16]
P. McCullagh. 1980. Regression models for ordinal data. Journal of Royal Statistical Society B(42) (1980), 109--142.
[17]
Gideon Schwarz and others. 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. The annals of statistics 6, 2 (1978), 461--464.
[18]
Jeffrey S. Simonoff. 1995. Smoothing categorical data. ELSEVIER Inference 47 (1995), 41 -- 69.
[19]
D. J. Spiegelhalter, N. G. Best, B. P. Carlin, and A. Van der Linde. 2002. Bayesian Measures of Model Complexity and Fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 64, 4 (2002), 583--616.
[20]
Russell Steele and Adrian Raftery. 2009. Performance of Bayesian Model Selection Criteria for Gaussian Mixture Models. Technical Report. University of Washington, Dept. of Statistics.
[21]
D. Titterington, A. Smith, and U. Makov. 1985. Statistical Analysis of Finite Mixture Distributions. John Wiley, New York. 877--883

Cited By

View all
  • (2019)Human uncertainty in explicit user feedback and its impact on the comparative evaluations of accurate prediction and personalisationBehaviour & Information Technology10.1080/0144929X.2019.1604804(1-34)Online publication date: 21-May-2019

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
WI '17: Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Intelligence
August 2017
1284 pages
ISBN:9781450349512
DOI:10.1145/3106426
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]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 23 August 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. collective feedback
  2. ordinal scales
  3. probabilistic models
  4. user uncertainty

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

WI '17
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

WI '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 118 of 178 submissions, 66%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 118 of 178 submissions, 66%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 18 Aug 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2019)Human uncertainty in explicit user feedback and its impact on the comparative evaluations of accurate prediction and personalisationBehaviour & Information Technology10.1080/0144929X.2019.1604804(1-34)Online publication date: 21-May-2019

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media