Generalized distances between rankings

Spearman's footrule and Kendall's tau are two well established distances between rankings. They, however, fail to take into account concepts crucial to evaluating a result set in information retrieval: element relevance and positional information. That is, changing the rank of a highly-relevant document should result in a higher penalty than changing the rank of an irrelevant document; a similar logic holds for the top versus the bottom of the result ordering. In this work, we extend both of these metrics to those with position and element weights, and show that a variant of the Diaconis-Graham inequality still holds - the generalized two measures remain within a constant factor of each other for all permutations. We continue by extending the element weights into a distance metric between elements. For example, in search evaluation, swapping the order of two nearly duplicate results should result in little penalty, even if these two are highly relevant and appear at the top of the list. We extend the distance measures to this more general case and show that they remain within a constant factor of each other. We conclude by conducting simple experiments on web search data with the proposed measures. Our experiments show that the weighted generalizations are more robust and consistent with each other than their unweighted counter-parts.

[1]  M. Kendall A NEW MEASURE OF RANK CORRELATION , 1938 .

[2]  R. Graham,et al.  Spearman's Footrule as a Measure of Disarray , 1977 .

[3]  C. Spearman The proof and measurement of association between two things. By C. Spearman, 1904. , 1987, The American journal of psychology.

[4]  Grace S. Shieh A weighted Kendall's tau statistic , 1998 .

[5]  Jaana Kekäläinen,et al.  IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents , 2000, SIGIR '00.

[6]  Grace S. Shieh,et al.  RANK TESTS FOR INDEPENDENCE — WITH A WEIGHTED CONTAMINATION ALTERNATIVE , 2000 .

[7]  Moni Naor,et al.  Rank aggregation methods for the Web , 2001, WWW '01.

[8]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Efficient similarity search and classification via rank aggregation , 2003, SIGMOD '03.

[9]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Comparing top k lists , 2003, SODA '03.

[10]  Ellen M. Voorhees,et al.  Retrieval evaluation with incomplete information , 2004, SIGIR '04.

[11]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Comparing Partial Rankings , 2006, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[12]  D. Sculley,et al.  Rank Aggregation for Similar Items , 2007, SDM.

[13]  Claire Mathieu,et al.  Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 144 (2006) How to rank with few errors A PTAS for Weighted Feedback Arc Set on Tournaments , 2006 .

[14]  Nick Craswell,et al.  An experimental comparison of click position-bias models , 2008, WSDM '08.

[15]  Nir Ailon,et al.  Aggregating inconsistent information: Ranking and clustering , 2008 .

[16]  Stephen E. Robertson,et al.  A new rank correlation coefficient for information retrieval , 2008, SIGIR '08.

[17]  Sreenivas Gollapudi,et al.  Diversifying search results , 2009, WSDM '09.

[18]  Ben Carterette,et al.  On rank correlation and the distance between rankings , 2009, SIGIR.

[19]  Olivier Chapelle,et al.  Expected reciprocal rank for graded relevance , 2009, CIKM.

[20]  Ali Dasdan,et al.  Automatic retrieval of similar content using search engine query interface , 2009, CIKM.

[21]  C. Spearman The proof and measurement of association between two things. , 2015, International journal of epidemiology.