New learning methods for supervised and unsupervised preference aggregation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we present a general treatment of the preference aggregation problem, in which multiple preferences over objects must be combined into a single consensus ranking. We consider two instances of this problem: unsupervised aggregation where no informa-tion about a target ranking is available, and supervised aggregation where ground truth preferences are provided. For each problem class we develop novel learning methods that are applicable to a wide range of preference types.1 Specifically, for unsupervised aggre-gation we introduce the Multinomial Preference model (MPM) which uses a multinomial generative process to model the observed preferences. For the supervised problem we de-velop a supervised extension for MPM and then propose two fully supervised models. The first model employs SVD factorization to derive effective item features, transforming the aggregation problems into a learning-to-rank one. The second model aims to eliminate the costly SVD factorization and instantiates a probabilistic CRF framework, deriving unary and pairwise potentials directly from the observed preferences. Using a probabilistic frame-work allows us to directly optimize the expectation of any target metric, such as NDCG or ERR. All the proposed models operate on pairwise preferences and can thus be applied to a wide range of preference types. We empirically validate the models on rank aggregation and collaborative filtering data sets and demonstrate superior empirical accuracy.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".