Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3673791.3698422acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagessigir-apConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

How do Ties Affect the Uncertainty in Rank-Biased Overlap?

Published: 08 December 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Rank-Biased Overlap (RBO) is a popular measure of the similarity between two rankings. A key characteristic of RBO is that it can be computed even when the rankings are not fully seen and only a prefix is known, but this introduces uncertainty in the computation. In such cases, one would normally compute the point estimate RBOEXT, as well as bounds representing the best and worst cases; their difference is thus a residual quantifying the amount of uncertainty. Another source of uncertainty is the presence of tied items, because their actual relative order is unknown. Current approaches to this issue similarly provide a point estimate by considering the average RBO score over all the permutations of the ties, such as RBOa. However, there is currently no approach to quantify and bound the uncertainty due to ties, just as there is for the uncertainty due to unseen items. In this paper we fill this gap and provide algorithmic solutions to the problem of finding the arrangements of tied items that yield the lowest and highest possible RBO scores, naturally leading to total bounds and residuals. We also show that the current RBOa estimate only equals the average RBO over permutations when the rankings have the same length, so we also generalize it to rankings of different lengths. In summary, this work provides a full account for the uncertainty in RBO, allowing practitioners to make more sensible decisions on the grounds of rank similarity. The main realization is that residuals can actually be much larger once we account for both sources of uncertainty. To illustrate this, we present empirical results using both synthetic and TREC data, demonstrating that a realistic picture for the residual of RBO can only be provided by considering both sources of uncertainty.

References

[1]
Aly Abdelrazek, Yomna Eid, Eman Gawish, Walaa Medhat, and Ahmed Hassan Yousef. 2022. Topic Modeling Algorithms and Applications: A Survey. Information Systems, Vol. 112 (2022).
[2]
Peter Bailey, Alistair Moffat, Falk Scholer, and Paul Thomas. 2017. Retrieval Consistency in the Presence of Query Variations. In PInternational ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 395--404.
[3]
Judit Bar-Ilan, Mazlita Mat-Hassan, and Mark Levene. 2006. Methods for Comparing Rankings of Search Engine Results. Computer Networks, Vol. 50, 10 (2006), 1448--1463.
[4]
Chris Buckley. 2004. Topic Prediction Based on Comparative Retrieval Rankings. In International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 506--507.
[5]
Guillaume Cabanac, Gilles Hubert, Mohand Boughanem, and Claude Chrisment. 2010. Tie-breaking Bias: Effect of an Uncontrolled Parameter on Information Retrieval Evaluation. In International Conference of the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum for European Languages. 112--123.
[6]
Rocío Cañamares, Pablo Castells, and Alistair Moffat. 2020. Offline Evaluation Options for Recommender Systems. Information Retrieval Journal, Vol. 23, 4 (2020), 387--410.
[7]
Bruno Cardoso and João Magalhães. 2011. Google, Bing and a New Perspective on Ranking Similarity. ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 1933--1936.
[8]
Ben Carterette. 2009. On rank correlation and the distance between rankings. In Proceedings of the 32nd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. 436--443.
[9]
Charles L. A. Clarke, Mark D. Smucker, and Alexandra Vtyurina. 2020. Offline Evaluation by Maximum Similarity to an Ideal Ranking. In ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 225--234.
[10]
Gordon V Cormack and Maura R Grossman. 2018. Beyond pooling. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval. 1169--1172.
[11]
Matteo Corsi and Julián Urbano. 2024. The Treatment of Ties in Rank-Biased Overlap. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 251--260.
[12]
Arthur Eddington. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge University Press.
[13]
Ronald Fagin, Ravi Kumar, and Dakshinamurthi Sivakumar. 2003. Comparing Top k Lists. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, Vol. 17, 1 (2003), 134--160.
[14]
Soumyajit Gupta, Mücahid Kutlu, Vivek Khetan, and Matthew Lease. 2019. Correlation, Prediction and Ranking of Evaluation Metrics in Information Retrieval. In European Conference on Information Retrieval. 636--651.
[15]
Maurice G. Kendall. 1938. A New Measure of Rank Correlation. Biometrika, Vol. 30, 1 (1938), 81--93.
[16]
Maurice G. Kendall. 1945. The Treatment of Ties in Ranking Problems. Biometrika, Vol. 33, 3 (1945), 239--251.
[17]
A. Kolmogorov. 1933. Sulla Determinazione Empirica di una Legge di Distribuzione. Giornale dell'Istituto Italiano degli Attuari, Vol. 4 (1933), 83--91.
[18]
Ravi Kumar and Sergei Vassilvitskii. 2010. Generalized Distances Between Rankings. In International Conference on World Wide Web. 571--580.
[19]
Jimmy Lin, Tamer Elsayed, Lidan Wang, and Donald Metzler. 2009. Of Ivory and Smurfs: Loxodontan MapReduce Experiments for Web Search. In Text REtrieval Conference TREC, Vol. 500--278.
[20]
Jimmy Lin and Peilin Yang. 2019. The Impact of Score Ties on Repeatability in Document Ranking. In International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 1125--1128.
[21]
Mykola Makhortykh, Aleksandra Urman, and Roberto Ulloa. 2020. How search engines disseminate information about COVID-19 and why they should do better. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, Vol. 1, 3 (2020).
[22]
Mika V Mantyla, Maelick Claes, and Umar Farooq. 2018. Measuring LDA topic stability from clusters of replicated runs. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement. 1--4.
[23]
Frank McSherry and Marc Najork. 2008. Computing Information Retrieval Performance Measures Efficiently in the Presence of Tied Scores. In European Conference on Information Retrieval. 414--421.
[24]
Massimo Melucci. 2007. On Rank Correlation in Information Retrieval Evaluation. ACM SIGIR Forum, Vol. 41, 1 (jun 2007), 18--33.
[25]
Alistair Moffat, Peter Bailey, Falk Scholer, and Paul Thomas. 2017. Incorporating User Expectations and Behavior into the Measurement of Search Effectiveness. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 35, 3 (2017).
[26]
Karl Pearson. 1907. On Further Methods of Determining Correlation. Cambridge University Press.
[27]
Victor Le Pochat, Tom Van Goethem, Samaneh Tajalizadehkhoob, Maciej Korczyński, and Wouter Joosen. 2018. Tranco: A research-oriented top sites ranking hardened against manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.01156 (2018).
[28]
Vijay Raghavan, Peter Bollmann, and Gwang S. Jung. 1989. A Critical Investigation of Recall and Precision as Measures of Retrieval System Performance. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 7, 3 (1989), 205--229.
[29]
Chiman Salavati, Alireza Abdollahpouri, and Zhaleh Manbari. 2018. BridgeRank: A Novel Fast Centrality Measure based on Local Structure of the Network. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Vol. 496 (2018), 635--653.
[30]
Avi Segal, Kobi Gal, Guy Shani, and Bracha Shapira. 2019. A difficulty ranking approach to personalization in E-learning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 130 (2019), 261--272.
[31]
Charles Spearman. 1904. The Proof and Measurement of Association between Two Things. The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 15, 1 (1904), 72--101.
[32]
Student. 1921. An Experimental Determination of the Probable Error of Dr. Spearman's Correlation Coefficients. Biometrika, Vol. 13, 2/3 (1921), 263--282.
[33]
Mingxuan Sun, Guy Lebanon, and Kevyn Collins-Thompson. 2010. Visualizing Differences in Web Search Algorithms Using the Expected Weighted Hoeffding Distance. In International Conference on World Wide Web. 931--940.
[34]
Luchen Tan and Charles L. A. Clarke. 2015. A Family of Rank Similarity Measures Based on Maximized Effectiveness Difference. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. Knowl. Data Eng., Vol. 27, 11 (2015), 2865--2877.
[35]
Julián Urbano and Mónica Marrero. 2017. The Treatment of Ties in AP Correlation. In ACM SIGIR International Conference on the Theory of Information Retrieval. 321--324.
[36]
Sebastiano Vigna. 2015. A Weighted Correlation Index for Rankings with Ties. In International Conference on World Wide Web. 1166--1176.
[37]
Sergey Volokhin and Eugene Agichtein. 2018. Towards intent-aware contextual music recommendation: Initial experiments. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval. 1045--1048.
[38]
Sanne Vrijenhoek, Mesut Kaya, Nadia Metoui, Judith Möller, Daan Odijk, and Natali Helberger. 2021. Recommenders with a Mission: Assessing Diversity in News Recommendations. In ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. 173--183.
[39]
Yu Wang, Yuying Zhao, Yi Zhang, and Tyler Derr. 2023. Collaboration-aware graph convolutional network for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. 91--101.
[40]
William Webber, Alistair Moffat, and Justin Zobel. 2010. A Similarity Measure for Indefinite Rankings. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 28, 4 (2010), 1--38.
[41]
Emine Yilmaz, Javed A. Aslam, and Stephen Robertson. 2008. A New Rank Correlation Coefficient for Information Retrieval. In International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 587--594.
[42]
Oleg Zendel, Anna Shtok, Fiana Raiber, Oren Kurland, and J. Shane Culpepper. 2019. Information Needs, Queries, and Query Performance Prediction. In International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 395--404.
[43]
Guido Zuccon. 2016. Understandability biased evaluation for information retrieval. In Advances in Information Retrieval: 38th European Conference on IR Research, ECIR 2016, Padua, Italy, March 20--23, 2016. Proceedings 38. Springer, 280--292.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SIGIR-AP 2024: Proceedings of the 2024 Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval in the Asia Pacific Region
December 2024
328 pages
ISBN:9798400707247
DOI:10.1145/3673791
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 08 December 2024

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. bounds
  2. rank correlation
  3. rank similarity
  4. rank-biased overlap
  5. ties
  6. uncertainty

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

SIGIR-AP 2024
Sponsor:

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 44
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)44
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)44
Reflects downloads up to 24 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media