Hybrid-MST: A Hybrid Active Sampling Strategy for Pairwise Preference Aggregation

In this paper we present a hybrid active sampling strategy for pairwise preference aggregation, which aims at recovering the underlying rating of the test candidates from sparse and noisy pairwise labelling. Our method employs Bayesian optimization framework and Bradley-Terry model to construct the utility function, then to obtain the Expected Information Gain (EIG) of each pair. For computational efficiency, Gaussian-Hermite quadrature is used for estimation of EIG. In this work, a hybrid active sampling strategy is proposed, either using Global Maximum (GM) EIG sampling or Minimum Spanning Tree (MST) sampling in each trial, which is determined by the test budget. The proposed method has been validated on both simulated and real-world datasets, where it shows higher preference aggregation ability than the state-of-the-art methods.

[1]  Tom Minka,et al.  TrueSkillTM: A Bayesian Skill Rating System , 2006, NIPS.

[2]  Marcus Barkowsky,et al.  Subjective assessment methodology for preference of experience in 3DTV , 2013, IVMSP 2013.

[3]  Tom Minka,et al.  TrueSkill Through Time: Revisiting the History of Chess , 2007, NIPS.

[4]  Xi Chen,et al.  HodgeRank With Information Maximization for Crowdsourced Pairwise Ranking Aggregation , 2017, AAAI.

[5]  O. Dykstra Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: A Method of Paired Comparisons Employing Unequal Repetitions on Pairs , 1960 .

[6]  Jing Li,et al.  Boosting paired comparison methodology in measuring visual discomfort of 3DTV: performances of three different designs , 2013, Electronic Imaging.

[7]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Learning Mallows Models with Pairwise Preferences , 2011, ICML.

[8]  Sugato Chakravarty,et al.  Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures , 1995 .

[9]  Alan C. Bovik,et al.  Image quality assessment using natural scene statistics , 2004 .

[10]  Tao Qin,et al.  A New Probabilistic Model for Rank Aggregation , 2010, NIPS.

[11]  R. Prim Shortest connection networks and some generalizations , 1957 .

[12]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Generalized Method-of-Moments for Rank Aggregation , 2013, NIPS.

[13]  D. Amnon Silverstein,et al.  Quantifying Perceptual Image Quality , 1998, PICS.

[14]  Martin J. Wainwright,et al.  Estimation from Pairwise Comparisons: Sharp Minimax Bounds with Topology Dependence , 2015, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[15]  Paul N. Bennett,et al.  Pairwise ranking aggregation in a crowdsourced setting , 2013, WSDM.

[16]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Random Utility Theory for Social Choice , 2012, NIPS.

[17]  Robert D. Nowak,et al.  Active Ranking using Pairwise Comparisons , 2011, NIPS.

[18]  Yoram Singer,et al.  An Efficient Boosting Algorithm for Combining Preferences by , 2013 .

[19]  Nir Ailon,et al.  Reconciling real scores with binary comparisons: a unified logistic model for ranking , 2008, NIPS 2008.

[20]  R. A. Bradley RANK ANALYSIS OF INCOMPLETE BLOCK DESIGNS: III. SOME LARGE-SAMPLE RESULTS ON ESTIMATION AND POWER FOR A METHOD OF PAIRED COMPARISONS , 1955 .

[21]  Peter Schelkens,et al.  Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience , 2013 .

[22]  D. Lindley On a Measure of the Information Provided by an Experiment , 1956 .

[23]  ITU-T Rec. P.910 (04/2008) Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications , 2009 .

[24]  L. Thurstone A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .

[25]  Nir Ailon,et al.  Reconciling Real Scores with Binary Comparisons: A New Logistic Based Model for Ranking , 2008, NIPS.

[26]  David S. Doermann,et al.  Active Sampling for Subjective Image Quality Assessment , 2014, 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[27]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis , 1979 .

[28]  Thomas Pfeiffer,et al.  Adaptive Polling for Information Aggregation , 2012, AAAI.

[29]  Qingming Huang,et al.  Random partial paired comparison for subjective video quality assessment via hodgerank , 2011, ACM Multimedia.

[30]  Marcus Barkowsky,et al.  Analysis and improvement of a paired comparison method in the application of 3DTV subjective experiment , 2012, 2012 19th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing.

[31]  Peter Emerson,et al.  The original Borda count and partial voting , 2013, Soc. Choice Welf..

[32]  Patrick Le Callet,et al.  Subjective quality assessment IRCCyN/IVC database , 2004 .

[33]  Philip Rabinowitz,et al.  Methods of Numerical Integration , 1985 .

[34]  Nebojsa Jojic,et al.  Efficient Ranking from Pairwise Comparisons , 2013, ICML.

[35]  Devavrat Shah,et al.  Iterative ranking from pair-wise comparisons , 2012, NIPS.

[36]  C. L. Mallows NON-NULL RANKING MODELS. I , 1957 .

[37]  Koby Crammer,et al.  Pranking with Ranking , 2001, NIPS.

[38]  Mehryar Mohri,et al.  Magnitude-preserving ranking algorithms , 2007, ICML '07.

[39]  Christian Schmid,et al.  A Matlab function to estimate choice model parameters from paired-comparison data , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[40]  R. A. Bradley,et al.  RANK ANALYSIS OF INCOMPLETE BLOCK DESIGNS THE METHOD OF PAIRED COMPARISONS , 1952 .

[41]  R. Plackett The Analysis of Permutations , 1975 .

[42]  Qingming Huang,et al.  HodgeRank on Random Graphs for Subjective Video Quality Assessment , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.

[43]  Junle Wang,et al.  Exploring the effects of subjective methodology on assessing visual discomfort in immersive multimedia , 2018, HVEI.