A similarity measure for indefinite rankings

Abstract

Ranked lists are encountered in research and daily life and it is often of interest to compare these lists even when they are incomplete or have only some members in common. An example is document rankings returned for the same query by different search engines. A measure of the similarity between incomplete rankings should handle nonconjointness, weight high ranks more heavily than low, and be monotonic with increasing depth of evaluation; but no measure satisfying all these criteria currently exists. In this article, we propose a new measure having these qualities, namely rank-biased overlap (RBO). The RBO measure is based on a simple probabilistic user model. It provides monotonicity by calculating, at a given depth of evaluation, a base score that is non-decreasing with additional evaluation, and a maximum score that is nonincreasing. An extrapolated score can be calculated between these bounds if a point estimate is required. RBO has a parameter which determines the strength of the weighting to top ranks. We extend RBO to handle tied ranks and rankings of different lengths. Finally, we give examples of the use of the measure in comparing the results produced by public search engines and in assessing retrieval systems in the laboratory.

References

1. Bar-Ilan, J. 2005. Comparing rankings of search results on the Web. Inform. Proc. Manag. 41, 1511--1519.
2. Bar-Ilan, J., Mat-Hassan, M., and Levene, M. 2006. Methods for comparing rankings of search engine results. Comput. Netw. 50, 10 (July), 1448--1463.
3. Blest, D. C. 2000. Rank correlation—an alternative measure. Australian and New Zealand J. Statis. 42, 1, 101--111.
4. Buckley, C. 2004. Topic prediction based on comparative retrieval rankings. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, M. Sanderson, K. Järvelin, J. Allan, and P. Bruza, Eds. 506--507.
5. Carterette, B. 2009. On rank correlation and the distance between rankings. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, J. Allan, J. Aslam, M. Sanderson, C. Zhai, and J. Zobel, Eds. 436--443.
6. Cliff, N. 1996. Ordinal Methods for Behavioural Data Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Fagin, R., Kumar, R., and Sivakumar, D. 2003. Comparing top k lists. SIAM J. Discrete Mathem. 17, 1, 134--160.
8. Gibbons, J. D. and Chakraborti, S. 2003. Nonparametric Statistical Inference 4th Ed. CRC.
9. Goodman, L. A. and Kruskal, W. H. 1954. Measures of association for cross classifications. J. Am. Statis. Assoc. 49, 268, 732--764.
10. Iman, R. L. and Conover, W. J. 1987. A measure of top-down correlation. Technometrics 29, 351--357.
11. Järvelin, K. and Kekäläinen, J. 2002. Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. 20, 4, 422--446.
12. Kendall, M. G. 1948. Rank Correlation Methods 1st Ed. Charles Griffin, London.
13. Knuth, D. E. 1997. The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. I: Fundamental Algorithms. 3rd Ed. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
14. Lester, N., Moffat, A., Webber, W., and Zobel, J. 2005. Space-limited ranked query evaluation using adaptive pruning. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Web Informations Systems. A. H. Ngu, M. Kitsuregawa, E. J. Neuhold, J.-Y. Chung, and Q. Z. Sheng, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3806, 470--477.
15. Melucci, M. 2007. On rank correlation in information retrieval evaluation. SIGIR Forum 41, 1, 18--33.
16. Melucci, M. 2009. Weighted rank correlation in information retrieval evaluation. In Proceedings of the 5th Asia Information Retrieval Symposium, G. G. Lee, D. Song, C.-Y. Lin, A. Aizawa, K. Kuriyama, M. Yoshioka, and T. Sakai, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5839, 75--86.
17. Moffat, A. and Zobel, J. 2008. Rank-biased precision for measurement of retrieval effectiveness. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. 27, 1, 1--27.
18. Quade, D. and Salama, I. A. 1992. A survey of weighted rank correlation. In Order Statistics and Nonparametrics: Theory and Applications, P. K. Sen and I. A. Salama, Eds. Elsevier, 213--224.
19. Shieh, G. S. 1998. A weighted Kendall's tau statistic. Statist. Probability Lett. 39, 17--24.
20. Tarsitano, A. 2002. Nonlinear rank correlation. Departmental working paper, Universitò degli studi della Calabria.
21. Wu, S. and Crestani, F. 2003. Methods for ranking information retrieval systems without relevance judgments. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC). 811--816.
22. Yilmaz, E., Aslam, J. A., and Robertson, S. 2008. A new rank correlation coefficient for information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, S.-H. Myaeng, D. W. Oard, F. Sebastiani, T.-S. Chua, and M.-K. Leong, Eds. 587--594.
23. Zhai, C. and Lafferty, J. 2004. A study of smoothing methods for language models applied to information retrieval. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. 22, 2, (Apr.). 179--214.

Index Terms

• Information systems

  • Information retrieval

    • Evaluation of retrieval results

• Mathematics of computing

  • Probability and statistics

    • Statistical paradigms

      • Exploratory data analysis