MULTIDIMENSIONAL RANKING

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Web Information Retrieval
Advertisements

Common Voting Rules as Maximum Likelihood Estimators Vincent Conitzer (Joint work with Tuomas Sandholm) Early version of this work appeared in UAI-05.
Voting and social choice Vincent Conitzer
Algorithmic Game Theory Uri Feige Robi Krauthgamer Moni Naor Lecture 9: Social Choice Lecturer: Moni Naor.
CS 886: Electronic Market Design Social Choice (Preference Aggregation) September 20.
Brittany Vacchiano. » Voting procedure in which voters can vote for as many candidate as they wish » Each candidate approved of receives one vote » Single.
Computing Kemeny and Slater Rankings Vincent Conitzer (Joint work with Andrew Davenport and Jayant Kalagnanam at IBM Research.)
Computational Methods for Management and Economics Carla Gomes Module 8b The transportation simplex method.
Excursions in Modern Mathematics Sixth Edition
Using a Modified Borda Count to Predict the Outcome of a Condorcet Tally on a Graphical Model 11/19/05 Galen Pickard, MIT Advisor: Dr. Whitman Richards,
1.2 Row Reduction and Echelon Forms
Linear Equations in Linear Algebra
Rank Aggregation Methods for the Web CS728 Lecture 11.
CPS Voting and social choice
1 Algorithms for Large Data Sets Ziv Bar-Yossef Lecture 7 April 20, 2005
MADM Y. İlker TOPCU, Ph.D twitter.com/yitopcu.
Social choice (voting) Vincent Conitzer > > > >
An efficient distributed protocol for collective decision- making in combinatorial domains CMSS Feb , 2012 Minyi Li Intelligent Agent Technology.
CPS Voting and social choice Vincent Conitzer
Group Recommendations with Rank Aggregation and Collaborative Filtering Linas Baltrunas, Tadas Makcinskas, Francesco Ricci Free University of Bozen-Bolzano.
Information Networks Rank Aggregation Lecture 10.
Multi-Criteria Decision Making
1 Elections and Manipulations: Ehud Friedgut, Gil Kalai, and Noam Nisan Hebrew University of Jerusalem and EF: U. of Toronto, GK: Yale University, NN:
Maximizing value and Minimizing base on Fuzzy TOPSIS model
Great Theoretical Ideas in Computer Science.
Analyzing the Problem (SAW, WP, TOPSIS) Y. İlker TOPCU, Ph.D twitter.com/yitopcu.
Relations. Important Definitions We covered all of these definitions on the board on Monday, November 7 th. Definition 1 Definition 2 Definition 3 Definition.
Top-K Generation of Integrated Schemas Based on Directed and Weighted Correspondences by Ahmed Radwan, Lucian Popa, Ioana R. Stanoi, Akmal Younis Presented.
DATA INTEGRATION TECHNIQUES WITH APPLICATIONS IN HEALTH SCIENCES BKSinha Ex-Faculty, ISI, Kolkata April 17, 2012.
1 1.2 Linear Equations in Linear Algebra Row Reduction and Echelon Forms © 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.
Ashish Das Indian Institute of Technology Bombay India.
Various Problem Solving Approaches. Problem solving by analogy Very often problems can be solved by looking at similar problems. For example, consider.
The Transportation and Assignment Problems
EMGT 6412/MATH 6665 Mathematical Programming Spring 2016
Algorithms for Large Data Sets
Chap 10. Sensitivity Analysis
Impossibility and Other Alternative Voting Methods
Chapter 11 Dynamic Programming.
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Linear Programming Dr. T. T. Kachwala.
Social choice theory = preference aggregation = voting assuming agents tell the truth about their preferences Tuomas Sandholm Professor Computer Science.
EMGT 6412/MATH 6665 Mathematical Programming Spring 2016
Haim Kaplan and Uri Zwick
Applied Mechanism Design For Social Good
Decision Matrices Business Economics.
Impossibility and Other Alternative Voting Methods
Introduction If we assume
Duality for linear programming.
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Chap 9. General LP problems: Duality and Infeasibility
Rank Aggregation.
Chapter 6. Large Scale Optimization
Information Organization: Clustering
Chapter 7 Transportation, Assignment & Transshipment Problems
Linear Equations in Linear Algebra
Models and Algorithms for Complex Networks
Voting systems Chi-Kwong Li.
Voting and social choice
Overview Part 1 – Design Procedure Part 2 – Combinational Logic
Heuristic Minimization of Two Level Circuits
Overview Part 2 – Circuit Optimization
IME634: Management Decision Analysis
IME634: Management Decision Analysis
Heuristic Minimization of Two Level Circuits
CPS 173 Voting and social choice
Section 14.1 Voting Methods.
CPS Voting and social choice
Linear Equations in Linear Algebra
Chapter 6. Large Scale Optimization
Outline Rank Aggregation Computing aggregate scores
Presentation transcript:

MULTIDIMENSIONAL RANKING Ashish Das Indian Institute of Technology Bombay India

Outline The Multidimensional Ranking Problem Applications Desired properties Ranking Methods with Illustrations Extensions and Modifications

The Multidimensional Ranking Problem m candidates (or “alternatives”) M = {1,…,m}: set of candidates n voters (or “agents” or “judges”) N = {1,…,n}: set of voters Each voter i, has an ranking i on M i(a) < i(b) means i-th voter prefers a to b The rank aggregation problem: Combine 1,…,n into a single ranking  on M, which represents the “social choice” of the voters. Rank aggregation function: f(1,…,n) = 

WHAT IS MULTIDIMENSIONAL RANKING? Multidimensional Ranking is an algorithm for comprehensive ranking based on more than one variable or opinion. The aim of multidimensional ranking is to combine many different rank orderings on a set of variables, in order to obtain a better ordering. It provides an aggregate or over-all measure by multi criteria decision making or data integration methods.

APPLICATIONS Meta search: Combine results of different web search engines into a better overall ranking Rank items in a database according to multiple criteria Ex: Choose a restaurant by cuisine, distance, price, quality, etc. Ex: Choose a flight ticket by price, # of stops, date and time, frequent flier bonuses, etc. Overall ranking of various mid-size cars available in the market Overall ranking of Banks Ranking service quality of mobile cell providers Overall ranking of universities Compare overall rankings over time

Desired Properties: Unanimity Unanimity (or Pareto optimality): If all voters prefer candidate a to candidate b (i.e., i(a) < i(b) for all i), then also  should prefer a to b (i.e., (a) < (b)). a c b a:b = 3:0

Desired Properties: Condorcet Condorcet Criterion [Condorcet, 1785]: Condorcet winner: a candidate a, which is preferred by most voters to any other candidate b (i.e., for all b, # of i s.t. i(a) < i(b) is at least n/2). Condorcet criterion: If Condorcet winner exists,  should rank it first (i.e., (a) = 1). c b a c b a a:b = 2:1, a:c = 2:1 No Condorcet winner

Desired Properties: XCC Extended Condorcet Criterion (XCC): If most voters prefer candidate a to candidate b (i.e., # of i s.t. i(a) < i(b) is at least n/2), then also  should prefer a to b (i.e., (a) < (b)). Not always realizable c b a c b a (a) < (b) < (c) Not realizable

Desired Properties: Neutrality and Anonymity No candidate should be favored to others. If two candidates switch positions in 1,…,n, they should switch positions also in . Anonymity No voter should be favored to others. If two voters switch their orderings,  should remain the same.

Desired Properties: Monotonicity and Consistency If the ranking of a candidate is improved by a voter, its ranking in  can only improve. Consistency If voters are split into two disjoint sets, S and T, and both the aggregation of voters in S and the aggregation of voters in T prefer a to b, then also the aggregation of all voters should prefer a to b.

METHODS For finding the best option from all the feasible alternatives, we use some sound approaches to aggregate or rank with respect to more than one attributes. A. Positional Rank Aggregation Methods B. TOPSIS METHOD (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution) C. KEMENEY’S METHOD

Positional Rank Aggregation Methods Plurality score(a) = # of voters who chose a as #1 : order candidates by decreasing scores Top-k approval score(a) = # of voters who chose a as one of the top k Borda’s rule [Borda, 1781] score(a) = i i(a) : order candidates by increasing scores

Positional Methods: Example b c a d Borda Top-2 Approval Plurality 1+1+4+4=10 2 a 2+4+2+1=9 3 1 b 3+3+1+3=10 c 4+2+3+2=11 d

The TOPSIS method TOPSIS [Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K. , 1981], compares each state or candidate with respect to positive and negative ideal solution Composite ranking ranks that alternative the best that has shortest distance from positive ideal solution & longest from the negative ideal solution The method induces an ordering of the solutions based on similarity to the ideal point, guiding the search towards the zone of interest

The TOPSIS method The TOPSIS distances I- f2min dz- az dj- dz+ aj dj+

Steps in TOPSIS computation Suppose S1, S2,…, Sm are m possible alternatives among which decision makers have to choose based on n criteria. Let, C1, C2 ,…, Cn are the criteria with which alternative performance are measured, Xij is the rating of alternative Si with respect to the criterion Cj. Thus, the data matrix is,

Household Consumer Expenditure in India 2006-07

Variables selected Average Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Average per person consumption of non-cereals in total food consumption (%) Average expenditure per person per 30 days on consumption of non-food articles (Rs.) Per 1000 number of hh who use LPG as main source for cooking Per 1000 number of households who use electricity as primary source of energy for lighting Per 1000 number of persons aged 7 & above who are literate Per 1000 number of persons aged 7 & above whose level of education is Higher Secondary or above Average covered area of dwelling unit (sq. m) per household Per 1000 no. of hh who do not stay in self owned dwelling unit

TOPSIS RANK TABLE

Rural Data After Ranking

TOPSIS RANK TABLE (RANKED DATA)

Change in Rank Orderings

Optimal Rank Aggregation d: distance measure among rankings Definition: The optimal rank aggregation for 1,…,n w.r.t. d is the ranking  which minimizes i d(,i). 1 n 2 

Distance Measures Kendall tau distance (or “bubble sort distance”) K(,) = # of pairs of candidates (a,b) on which  and  disagree Ex: K( (a b c d), (a d c b)) = 0 + 2 + 1 = 3 Spearman footrule distance F(,) = a |(a) - (a)| Ex: F((a b c d), (a d c b)) = 0 + 2 + 0 + 2 = 4

Kemeny Optimal Aggregation [Kemeny 1959] Optimal aggregation w.r.t. Kendall-tau distance (NP-hard even for small n) K-distance. Let π and σ be two partial lists of {1,…, m}. The K-distance of π and σ, denoted K(π, σ), is the number of pairs i,j ε {1, …, m} such that π(i) < π(j) but σ(i)>σ(j). Note that if it is not the case that both i and j appear in both lists π and σ, then the pair (i,j) contributes nothing to the K-distance between the two lists. For any two partial lists K(π, σ) = K(σ, π). SK, Kemeny optimal. For a collection of partial lists τ1, τ2,…, τn and a full list π we denote SK(π, τ1, τ2,…, τn) = Σ K(π, τi). We say that a permutation σ is a Kemeny optimal aggregation of a collection of partial lists τ1, τ2,…, τn if it minimizes SK(π, τ1, τ2,…, τn) over all permutations π. Theorem [Young & Levenglick, 1978] [Truchon 1998]: Kemeny optimal aggregation is the only rank aggregation function, which is neutral, consistent, and satisfies the Extended Condorcet principle.

APPLICATION PROCEDURE In Kemeny’s method one finds an optimal ranking on the basis of some given condition (variables). We illustrate through the same data set used in TOPSIS method. We apply KEMENY’S method in two different ways: Direct application of KEMENY’S method Stepwise application of KEMENY’S method

DIRECT APPLICATION OF KEMENY’S METHOD Step1: We first decide on the number of states for applying KEMENY. Suppose we choose m=4 rows (states A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4). We work out the 4! = 24 permutations of 1,2,3,4. A permutation 2314 means that the ranking is BCAD. Step2: We incorporate our data matrix as 4 rows and n = 9 (say) columns. Then we construct the rank (position) matrix involving ranking of the states with respect to each of the 9 variables. Step3: We calculate the number of non-matching pairs between each one of the permutations of 1,2,3,4 and position orderings for each of the 9 variables. Step4: We next calculate the K-distance for each of the permutations. K- distances are defined as the number of non-matching pairs between a permutations and position orderings for each of the 9 variables.

EXAMPLE   Variables -> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A=1 Bihar 541.3 0.57 218.3 14 113 522 39 38 B=2 Orissa 458.6 0.56 193.3 25 302 600 40 47.3 21 C=3 West Bengal 629.9 0.62 258.8 31 373 710 38.3 D=4 Madhya Pradesh 514.9 0.67 251.1 660 611 47.5 19 Rank Matrix 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 2 4 2 4 3 2 4 3 4 4 2 Position Matrix 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 2 2 4 3 4 1 3 4 2 3 4 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3

EXAMPLE 2 4 1 3 Position Matrix S.No. 1 4 3 2 1 2 4 3 1 2 3 4 2 3 1 4 Permutations 1 4 3 2 1 2 4 3 1 2 3 4 2 3 1 4 4 2 1 3 5 4 1 2 3 6 4 1 3 2 7 3 4 2 1 8 3 4 1 2 9 3 2 4 1 10 3 2 1 4 11 3 1 2 4 12 3 1 4 2 13 2 3 4 1 14 2 3 1 4 15 2 4 3 1 16 2 4 1 3 17 2 1 4 3 18 2 1 3 4 19 1 3 2 4 20 1 3 4 2 21 1 2 3 4 22 1 2 4 3 23 1 4 2 3 24 1 4 3 2 Counting K-distance 3 5 4 4 6 5 6 5 4 42 4 6 5 3 5 4 6 4 3 40 2 4 3 3 5 4 6 6 3 36 1 3 2 2 4 3 6 5 2 28 2 4 3 1 3 2 6 4 1 26 3 5 4 2 4 3 6 3 2 32 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 4 5 44 5 5 6 4 4 5 6 3 4 3 3 4 6 4 5 6 3 6 4 2 3 5 3 4 5 2 5 33 5 3 4 4 2 3 5 1 4 31 6 4 5 3 3 4 5 2 3 35 2 2 3 5 3 4 6 4 5 34 3 1 2 4 2 3 5 3 4 27 1 3 2 4 4 3 6 5 4 0 2 1 3 3 2 6 4 3 24 1 1 0 2 2 1 5 3 2 17 2 0 1 3 1 2 5 2 3 19 4 2 3 3 1 2 5 0 3 23 5 3 4 2 2 3 5 1 2 3 1 2 2 0 1 5 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 5 2 1 15 3 3 2 0 2 1 5 3 0 4 4 3 1 3 2 5 2 1 25 Position Matrix 2 4 1 3

STEPWISE APPLICATION OF KEMENY’S METHOD Stepwise application of KEMENEY’S method is a new concept of applying the basic KEMENEY’S method. It is very useful for large data set, say for example m=26. Here the direct application of Kemeny is not feasible since there are 26! Combinations to look into. We introduce the concept of stepwise Kemeny. Step1: We have to first fix the number of row (= k) to be taken at a time (say, 3, or 4, or 5, …). After fixing this, we proceed as in Step1 (of Kemeny) taking m = k. Step2: We then incorporate our data matrix as 26 rows and 9 columns (say). Then we recursively choose our inputs from original data matrix. We choose first k (say 6) rows, and then construct rank matrix and position rank matrix as in Step 2 of Kemeny. Step3: We then proceed to Steps 3 and 4 of Kemeny based on these first 6 rows. The optimal Kemeny, thus obtained, is used to identify the Rank 1 state. In the next iteration we remove the Rank 1 state and add the 7th state in order to make a new set of 6 row. This process continues to identify Rank 2 state, Rank 3 state and so on Rank 20 state. The ranking in the final iteration gives Rank 21 through 26. Step4: Repeat the process till the rankings stabilize.

PERFORMANCE OF MODIFIED KEMENY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In Kemeny-2 it took 2 iterations to stabilize

COMPARISON BETWEEN TOPSIS & KEMENY METHODS We have described 2 different approaches for TOPSIS method and KEMENY method. We compare the optimum results for each of the above methods. As direct application of KEMENY method is not feasible for a large of data set, for illustration, we take a small data set.

EXAMPLE(SMALL DATA SET) Result based on original TOPSIS Result based on Ranked TOPSIS Result based on KEMENY

EXAMPLE(LARGE DATA SET)