Generalized distances between rankings

Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW '10

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 571-579

  Kumar, Ravi ^a   Vassilvitskii, Sergei ^a  

^a YAHOO RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

kendall's tau; metrics; permutation distances; spearman footrule

Indexed keywords

CONSTANT FACTORS; DISTANCE MEASURE; DISTANCE METRICS; KENDALL'S TAU; POSITIONAL INFORMATION; RELEVANT DOCUMENTS; WEB SEARCHES;

EXPERIMENTS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

WORLD WIDE WEB;

EID: 77954647813     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1772690.1772749     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. R. Agrawal, S. Gollapudi, A. Halverson, and S. Ieong. Diversifying search results. In Proc. 2nd WSDM, pages 5-14, 2009.
2. N. Ailon, M. Charikar, and A. Newman. Aggregating inconsistent information: Ranking and clustering. J. ACM, 55(5), 2008.
3. C. Buckley and E. Voorhees. Retrieval evaluation with incomplete information. In Proc. 27th SIGIR, pages 25-32, 2004.
4. B. Carterette. On rank correlation and the distance between rankings. In Proc. 32nd SIGIR, pages 436-443, 2009.
5. O. Chapelle, D. Metlzer, Y. Zhang, and P. Grinspan. Expected reciprocal rank for graded relevance. In Proc. 18th CIKM, pages 621-630, 2009.
6. N. Craswell, O. Zoeter, M. Taylor, and B. Ramsey. An experimental comparison of click position-bias models. In Proc. 1st WSDM, pages 87-94, 2008.
7. P. D'Alberto and A. Dasdan. Content-based search engine rank correlation. Manuscript, 2009.
8. P. Diaconis. Group Representation in Probability and Statistics. Number 11 in IMS Lecture Series. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 1988.
9. P. Diaconis and R. Graham. Spearman footrule as a measure of disarray. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B (Methodological), 39(2):262-268, 1977.
10. C. Dwork, R. Kumar, M. Naor, and D. Sivakumar. Rank aggregation methods for the web. In Proc. 10th WWW, pages 613-622, 2001.
11. R. Fagin, R. Kumar, M. Mahdian, D. Sivakumar, and E. Vee. Comparing partial rankings. SIAM J. Discrete Math., 20(3):628-648, 2006.
12. R. Fagin, R. Kumar, and D. Sivakumar. Comparing top k lists. In Proc. 14th SODA, pages 28-36, 2003.
13. R. Fagin, R. Kumar, and D. Sivakumar. Efficient similarity search and classification via rank aggregation. In Proc. SIGMOD, pages 301-312, 2003.
14. K. Järvelin and J. Kekäläinen. IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. In Proc. 23rd SIGIR, pages 41-48, 2000.
15. M. G. Kendall. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika, 30(1/2):81-93, 1938.
16. C. Kenyon-Mathieu and W. Schudy. How to rank with few errors. In Proc. 39th STOC, pages 95-103, 2007.
17. D. Sculley. Rank aggregation for similar items. In SDM, 2007.
18. G. Shieh, Z. Bai, and W. Tsai. Rank tests for independence - with a weighted contamination alternative. Statistica Sinica, 10:577-593, 2000.
19. G. S. Shieh. A weighted Kendall's tau statistic. Statistics & Probability Letters, 39(1):17-24, 1998.
20. C. Spearman. The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(1):72-101, 1904.
21. E. Yilmaz, J. A. Aslam, and S. Robertson. A new rank correlation coefficient for information retrieval. In Proc. 31st SIGIR, pages 587-594, 2008.