Learning Mallows models with pairwise preferences

Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 145-152

  Lu, Tyler ^a   Boutilier, Craig ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FUNDAMENTAL BUILDING BLOCKS; LEARNING PREFERENCES; LOG LIKELIHOOD; NON-PARAMETRIC ESTIMATIONS; ORDINAL RANKING; PAIR-WISE COMPARISON; REAL-WORLD DATASETS; SOCIAL CHOICE;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

LEARNING ALGORITHMS;

EID: 80053450574     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Burges, C. From ranknet to lambdarank to lambdamart: An overview. TR-2010-82, Microsoft Research, 2010.
2. Busse, L. M., Orbanz, P. and Buhmann, J. M. Cluster analysis of heterogeneous rank data. 24th Intl. Conf. on Machine Learning (ICML-07), pp.113-120, 2007.
3. Cheng, W., Dembczynski, K., and Hüllermeier, E. Label ranking methods based on the Plackett-Luce model. 27th Intl. Conf. on Machine Learning, pp.215-222, 2010.
4. Doignon, J., Pekec, A., and Regenwetter, M. The repeated insertion model for rankings: Missing link between two subset choice models. Psychometrika, 69(1):33-54, 2004. (Pubitemid 39436522)
5. Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., and Sivakumar, D. Rank aggregation methods for the web. 10th Intl. World Wide Web Conf. (WWW-01), pp.613-622, 2001.
6. Guiver, J. and Snelson, E. Bayesian inference for Plackett-Luce ranking models. 26th Intl. Conf. on Machine Learning (ICML-09), pp.377-384, 2009.
7. Kamishima, T., Kazawa, H., and Akaho, S. Supervised ordering: an empirical survey. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Data Mining (ICDM-05), pp.673-676, 2005.
8. Lebanon, G. and Mao, Y. Non-parametric modeling of partially ranked data. J. Machine Learning Research, 9: 2401-2429, 2008.
9. Louviere, J., Hensher, D., and Swait, J. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge, 2000.
10. Lu, T. and Boutilier, C. Robust Approximation and Incremental Elicitation in Voting Protocols 22nd Intl. Joint Conf. on AI (IJCAI-11), to appear, 2011.
11. Luce, R. D. Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. Wiley, 1959.
12. Mallows, C. L. Non-null ranking models. Biometrika, 44: 114-130, 1957.
13. Marden, J. I. Analyzing and modeling rank data. Chapman and Hall, 1995.
14. Meila, M. and Chen, H. Dirichlet process mixtures of generalized mallows models. 26th Conf. on Uncertainty in AI (UAI-10), pp. 358-367, 2010.
15. Murphy, T. B. and Martin, D. Mixtures of distance-based models for ranking data. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 41:645-655, 2003. (Pubitemid 36065401)
16. Neal, R. and Hinton, G. A view of the EM algorithm that justifies incremental, sparse, and other variants. In Jordan, M. (ed.), Learning in Graphical Models, pp.355-368. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
17. Plackett, R. The analysis of permutations. Applied Statistics, 24:193-202, 1975.
18. Young, P. Optimal voting rules. J. Economic Perspectives, 9:51-64, 1995.