Paper detail

Parsimonious Mixed-Effects HodgeRank for Crowdsourced Preference Aggregation

In crowdsourced preference aggregation, it is often assumed that all the annotators are subject to a common preference or utility function which generates their comparison behaviors in experiments. However, in reality annotators are subject to variations due to multi-criteria, abnormal, or a mixture of such behaviors. In this paper, we propose a parsimonious mixed-effects model based on HodgeRank, which takes into account both the fixed effect that the majority of annotators follows a common linear utility model, and the random effect that a small subset of annotators might deviate from the common significantly and exhibits strongly personalized preferences. HodgeRank has been successfully applied to subjective quality evaluation of multimedia and resolves pairwise crowdsourced ranking data into a global consensus ranking and cyclic conflicts of interests. As an extension, our proposed methodology further explores the conflicts of interests through the random effect in annotator specific variations. The key algorithm in this paper establishes a dynamic path from the common utility to individual variations, with different levels of parsimony or sparsity on personalization, based on newly developed Linearized Bregman Algorithms with Inverse Scale Space method. Finally the validity of the methodology are supported by experiments with both simulated examples and three real-world crowdsourcing datasets, which shows that our proposed method exhibits better performance (i.e. smaller test error) compared with HodgeRank due to its parsimonious property.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.