MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051275384 · doi:10.1145/2187836.2187902

A flexible generative model for preference aggregation

2012· article· en· W2051275384 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Pairwise comparisonInferencePreferenceRanking (information retrieval)Variety (cybernetics)Machine learningGenerative modelCollaborative filteringArtificial intelligenceAggregation problemProbabilistic logicPreference learningFace (sociological concept)Bayesian inferenceRecommender systemData miningGenerative grammarBayesian probabilityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many areas of study, such as information retrieval, collaborative filtering, and social choice face the preference aggregation problem, in which multiple preferences over objects must be combined into a consensus ranking. Preferences over items can be expressed in a variety of forms, which makes the aggregation problem difficult. In this work we formulate a flexible probabilistic model over pairwise comparisons that can accommodate all these forms. Inference in the model is very fast, making it applicable to problems with hundreds of thousands of preferences. Experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate superior performance to existing methods

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207