I was thinking of doing a simple program, which basically has a list of some items - such as foods, for an example - and which pairs two foods against each other for user to choose his or her favourite out of those two options. Ultimately, a list of ranked candidates would emerge. Behind the scenes, I thought two really simple "algorithms" to work by.
Working through each pairing possible to score the list perfectly. Seems really tedious for the user when there are many items in the list.
Simple elimination. Two foods enter, one leaves for the next round. But I can't really then get a rank, other than just general estimates of categories of performance.
So I was wondering, what other ranking systems there would be for one-on-one "tournaments" like this?
If you want to get a ranking with few comparisons, it will be very hard to beat Merge-Insertion sort. It is seldom used in practice because it is a lot of work to figure out the next comparison to make. But computer time is cheap relative to human time, so putting in the work to reduce the work on the human is worthwhile.
I have a list of users which need to be sorted into committees. The users can rank committees based on their particular preference, but must choose at least one to join. When they have all made their selections, the algorithm should sort them as evenly as possible taking into account their committee preference, gender, age, time zone and country (for now). I have looked at this question and its answer would seem like a good choice, but it is unclear to me how to add the various constraints to the algorithm for it to work.
Would anyone point me in the right direction on how to do this, please?
Looking for "clustering" will get you nowhere, because this is not a clustering type if task.
Instead, this is an assignment problem.
For further informarion, see:
Knapsack Problem
Generalized Assignment Problem
Usually, these are NP-hard to solve. Thus, one will usually choose a greedy optimization heuristic to find a reasonably good solution faster.
Think about how to best assign one person at a time.
Then, process the data as follows:
assign everybody that can only be assigned in a single way
find an unassigned person that is hard to assign, stop if everybody is assigned
assign the best possible way
remove preferences that are no longer admissible, and go to 1 again (there may be new person with only a single choice left)
For bonus points, add a source of randomness, and an overall quality measure. Then run the algorothm 10 times, and keep only the best result.
For further bonus, add an postprocessing optimization: when can you transfer one person to another group or swap to persons to improve the overall quality? Iterate over all persons to find such small improvements until you cannot find any.
I'm trying to understand how random forest works in plain English instead of mathematics. Can anybody give me a really simple explanation of how this algorithm works?
As far as I understand, we feed the features and labels without telling the algorithm which feature should be classified as which label? As I used to do Naive Bayes which is based on probability we need to tell which feature should be which label. Am I completely far off?
If I can get any very simple explanation I'd be really appreciated.
RandomForest uses a so-called bagging approach. The idea is based on the classic bias-variance trade off. Suppose that we have a set (say N) of overfitted estimators that have low bias but high cross-sample-variance. So low bias is good and we want to keep it, high variance is bad and we want to reduce it. RandomForest tries to achieve this by doing a so-called bootstraps/sub-sampling (as #Alexander mentioned, this is a combination of bootstrap sampling on both observations and features). The prediction is the average of individual estimators so the low-bias property is successfully preserved. And further by Central Limit Theorem, the variance of this sample average has a variance equal to variance of individual estimator divided by square root of N. So now, it has both low-bias and low-variance properties, and this is why RandomForest often outperforms stand-alone estimator.
Adding on to the above two answers, Since you mentioned a simple explanation. Here is a write up that I feel is the most simple way you can explain random forests.
Credits go to Edwin Chen for the simple explanation here in layman terms for random forests. Posting the same below.
Suppose you’re very indecisive, so whenever you want to watch a movie, you ask your friend Willow if she thinks you’ll like it. In order to answer, Willow first needs to figure out what movies you like, so you give her a bunch of movies and tell her whether you liked each one or not (i.e., you give her a labeled training set). Then, when you ask her if she thinks you’ll like movie X or not, she plays a 20 questions-like game with IMDB, asking questions like “Is X a romantic movie?”, “Does Johnny Depp star in X?”, and so on. She asks more informative questions first (i.e., she maximizes the information gain of each question), and gives you a yes/no answer at the end.
Thus, Willow is a decision tree for your movie preferences.
But Willow is only human, so she doesn’t always generalize your preferences very well (i.e., she overfits). In order to get more accurate recommendations, you’d like to ask a bunch of your friends and watch movie X if most of them say they think you’ll like it. That is, instead of asking only Willow, you want to ask Woody, Apple, and Cartman as well, and they vote on whether you’ll like a movie (i.e., you build an ensemble classifier, aka a forest in this case).
Now you don’t want each of your friends to do the same thing and give you the same answer, so you first give each of them slightly different data. After all, you’re not absolutely sure of your preferences yourself – you told Willow you loved Titanic, but maybe you were just happy that day because it was your birthday, so maybe some of your friends shouldn’t use the fact that you liked Titanic in making their recommendations. Or maybe you told her you loved Cinderella, but actually you really really loved it, so some of your friends should give Cinderella more weight. So instead of giving your friends the same data you gave Willow, you give them slightly perturbed versions. You don’t change your love/hate decisions, you just say you love/hate some movies a little more or less (formally, you give each of your friends a bootstrapped version of your original training data). For example, whereas you told Willow that you liked Black Swan and Harry Potter and disliked Avatar, you tell Woody that you liked Black Swan so much you watched it twice, you disliked Avatar, and don’t mention Harry Potter at all.
By using this ensemble, you hope that while each of your friends gives somewhat idiosyncratic recommendations (Willow thinks you like vampire movies more than you do, Woody thinks you like Pixar movies, and Cartman thinks you just hate everything), the errors get canceled out in the majority. Thus, your friends now form a bagged (bootstrap aggregated) forest of your movie preferences.
There’s still one problem with your data, however. While you loved both Titanic and Inception, it wasn’t because you like movies that star Leonardo DiCaprio. Maybe you liked both movies for other reasons. Thus, you don’t want your friends to all base their recommendations on whether Leo is in a movie or not. So when each friend asks IMDB a question, only a random subset of the possible questions is allowed (i.e., when you’re building a decision tree, at each node you use some randomness in selecting the attribute to split on, say by randomly selecting an attribute or by selecting an attribute from a random subset). This means your friends aren’t allowed to ask whether Leonardo DiCaprio is in the movie whenever they want. So whereas previously you injected randomness at the data level, by perturbing your movie preferences slightly, now you’re injecting randomness at the model level, by making your friends ask different questions at different times.
And so your friends now form a random forest.
I will try to give another complementary explanation with simple words.
A random forest is a collection of random decision trees (of number n_estimators in sklearn).
What you need to understand is how to build one random decision tree.
Roughly speaking, to build a random decision tree you start from a subset of your training samples. At each node you will draw randomly a subset of features (number determined by max_features in sklearn). For each of these features you will test different thresholds and see how they split your samples according to a given criterion (generally entropy or gini, criterion parameter in sklearn). Then you will keep the feature and its threshold that best split your data and record it in the node.
When the construction of the tree ends (it can be for different reasons: maximum depth is reached (max_depth in sklearn), minimum sample number is reached (min_samples_leaf in sklearn) etc.) you look at the samples in each leaf and keep the frequency of the labels.
As a result, it is like the tree gives you a partition of your training samples according to meaningful features.
As each node is built from features taken randomly, you understand that each tree built in this way will be different. This contributes to the good compromise between bias and variance, as explained by #Jianxun Li.
Then in testing mode, a test sample will go through each tree, giving you label frequencies for each tree. The most represented label is generally the final classification result.
I've seen some sites where they show two random items from a list, and users pick which one they prefer, and then based on the results of the user preferences, a ranking is generated for the entire data set. Does anyone know what this ranking algorithm is called and how it works?
Thank you.
I believe you're referring to the ELO rating system.
A simple implementation would be to always choose two random items for the comparison and give the preferred item a point. Then rank in order of decreasing points.
The usual method for this is collaborative filtering. For this usually the choices of all persons are compared and a similarity between persons is used to weight their choices, when recommending or rating items. That means, people who have shown similar choices to yours before, are used more to generate recommendations than those who have shown different behavior.
There are several methods for doing this inference, and which one is best or how to optimize the performance is an open research questions. Most often the simplest implementation will achieve sufficent predictions and is easy to implement. It just does a two multiplications of the preference matrix with itself transposed.
I'd like to rank a collection of landscape images by making a game whereby site visitors can rate them, in order to find out which images people find the most appealing.
What would be a good method of doing that?
Hot-or-Not style? I.e. show a single image, ask the user to rank it from 1-10. As I see it, this allows me to average the scores, and I would just need to ensure that I get an even distribution of votes across all the images. Fairly simple to implement.
Pick A-or-B? I.e. show two images, ask user to pick the better one. This is appealing as there is no numerical ranking, it's just a comparison. But how would I implement it? My first thought was to do it as a quicksort, with the comparison operations being provided by humans, and once completed, simply repeat the sort ad-infinitum.
How would you do it?
If you need numbers, I'm talking about one million images, on a site with 20,000 daily visits. I'd imagine a small proportion might play the game, for the sake of argument, lets say I can generate 2,000 human sort operations a day! It's a non-profit website, and the terminally curious will find it through my profile :)
As others have said, ranking 1-10 does not work that well because people have different levels.
The problem with the Pick A-or-B method is that its not guaranteed for the system to be transitive (A can beat B, but B beats C, and C beats A). Having nontransitive comparison operators breaks sorting algorithms. With quicksort, against this example, the letters not chosen as the pivot will be incorrectly ranked against each other.
At any given time, you want an absolute ranking of all the pictures (even if some/all of them are tied). You also want your ranking not to change unless someone votes.
I would use the Pick A-or-B (or tie) method, but determine ranking similar to the Elo ratings system which is used for rankings in 2 player games (originally chess):
The Elo player-rating
system compares players’ match records
against their opponents’ match records
and determines the probability of the
player winning the matchup. This
probability factor determines how many
points a players’ rating goes up or
down based on the results of each
match. When a player defeats an
opponent with a higher rating, the
player’s rating goes up more than if
he or she defeated a player with a
lower rating (since players should
defeat opponents who have lower
ratings).
The Elo System:
All new players start out with a base rating of 1600
WinProbability = 1/(10^(( Opponent’s Current Rating–Player’s Current Rating)/400) + 1)
ScoringPt = 1 point if they win the match, 0 if they lose, and 0.5 for a draw.
Player’s New Rating = Player’s Old Rating + (K-Value * (ScoringPt–Player’s Win Probability))
Replace "players" with pictures and you have a simple way of adjusting both pictures' rating based on a formula. You can then perform a ranking using those numeric scores. (K-Value here is the "Level" of the tournament. It's 8-16 for small local tournaments and 24-32 for larger invitationals/regionals. You can just use a constant like 20).
With this method, you only need to keep one number for each picture which is a lot less memory intensive than keeping the individual ranks of each picture to each other picture.
EDIT: Added a little more meat based on comments.
Most naive approaches to the problem have some serious issues. The worst is how bash.org and qdb.us displays quotes - users can vote a quote up (+1) or down (-1), and the list of best quotes is sorted by the total net score. This suffers from a horrible time bias - older quotes have accumulated huge numbers of positive votes via simple longevity even if they're only marginally humorous. This algorithm might make sense if jokes got funnier as they got older but - trust me - they don't.
There are various attempts to fix this - looking at the number of positive votes per time period, weighting more recent votes, implementing a decay system for older votes, calculating the ratio of positive to negative votes, etc. Most suffer from other flaws.
The best solution - I think - is the one that the websites The Funniest The Cutest, The Fairest, and Best Thing use - a modified Condorcet voting system:
The system gives each one a number based on, out of the things that it has faced, what percentage of them it usually beats. So each one gets the percentage score NumberOfThingsIBeat / (NumberOfThingsIBeat + NumberOfThingsThatBeatMe). Also, things are barred from the top list until they've been compared to a reasonable percentage of the set.
If there's a Condorcet winner in the set, this method will find it. Since that's unlikely, given the statistical nature, it finds the one that's the "closest" to being a Condorcet winner.
For more information on implementing such systems the Wikipedia page on Ranked Pairs should be helpful.
The algorithm requires people to compare two objects (your Pick-A-or-B option), but frankly, that's a good thing. I believe it's very well accepted in decision theory that humans are vastly better at comparing two objects than they are at abstract ranking. Millions of years of evolution make us good at picking the best apple off the tree, but terrible at deciding how closely the apple we picked hews to the true Platonic Form of appleness. (This is, by the way, why the Analytic Hierarchy Process is so nifty...but that's getting a bit off topic.)
One final point to make is that SO uses an algorithm to find the best answers which is very similar to bash.org's algorithm to find the best quote. It works well here, but fails terribly there - in large part because an old, highly rated, but now outdated answer here is likely to be edited. bash.org doesn't allow editing, and it's not clear how you'd even go about editing decade-old jokes about now-dated internet memes even if you could... In any case, my point is that the right algorithm usually depends on the details of your problem. :-)
I know this question is quite old but I thought I'd contribute
I'd look at the TrueSkill system developed at Microsoft Research. It's like ELO but has a much faster convergence time (looks exponential compared to linear), so you get more out of each vote. It is, however, more complex mathematically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueSkill
I don't like the Hot-or-Not style. Different people would pick different numbers even if they all liked the image exactly the same. Also I hate rating things out of 10, I never know which number to choose.
Pick A-or-B is much simpler and funner. You get to see two images, and comparisons are made between the images on the site.
These equations from Wikipedia makes it simpler/more effective to calculate Elo ratings, the algorithm for images A and B would be simple:
Get Ne, mA, mB and ratings RA,RB from your database.
Calculate KA ,KB, QA, QB by using the number of comparisons performed (Ne) and the number of times that image was compared (m) and current ratings :
Calculate EA and EB.
Score the winner's S : the winner as 1, loser as 0, and if you have a draw as 0.5,
Calculate the new ratings for both using:
Update the new ratings RA,RB and counts mA,mB in the database.
You may want to go with a combination.
First phase:
Hot-or-not style (although I would go with a 3 option vote: Sucks, Meh/OK. Cool!)
Once you've sorted the set into the 3 buckets, then I would select two images from the same bucket and go with the "Which is nicer"
You could then use an English Soccer system of promotion and demotion to move the top few "Sucks" into the Meh/OK region, in order to refine the edge cases.
Ranking 1-10 won't work, everyone has different levels. Someone who always gives 3-7 ratings would have his rankings eclipsed by people who always give 1 or 10.
a-or-b is more workable.
Wow, I'm late in the game.
I like the ELO system very much so, but like Owen says it seems to me that you'd be slow building up any significant results.
I believe humans have much greater capacity than just comparing two images, but you want to keep interactions to the bare minimum.
So how about you show n images (n being any number you can visibly display on a screen, this may be 10, 20, 30 depending on user's preference maybe) and get them to pick which they think is best in that lot. Now back to ELO. You need to modify you ratings system, but keep the same spirit. You have in fact compared one image to n-1 others. So you do your ELO rating n-1 times, but you should divide the change of rating by n-1 to match (so that results with different values of n are coherent with one another).
You're done. You've now got the best of all worlds. A simple rating system working with many images in one click.
If you prefer using the Pick A or B strategy I would recommend this paper: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/horvitz/crowd_pairwise.pdf
Chen, X., Bennett, P. N., Collins-Thompson, K., & Horvitz, E. (2013,
February). Pairwise ranking aggregation in a crowdsourced setting. In
Proceedings of the sixth ACM international conference on Web search
and data mining (pp. 193-202). ACM.
The paper tells about the Crowd-BT model which extends the famous Bradley-Terry pairwise comparison model into crowdsource setting. It also gives an adaptive learning algorithm to enhance the time and space efficiency of the model. You can find a Matlab implementation of the algorithm on Github (but I'm not sure if it works).
The defunct web site whatsbetter.com used an Elo style method. You can read about the method in their FAQ on the Internet Archive.
Pick A-or-B its the simplest and less prone to bias, however at each human interaction it gives you substantially less information. I think because of the bias reduction, Pick is superior and in the limit it provides you with the same information.
A very simple scoring scheme is to have a count for each picture. When someone gives a positive comparison increment the count, when someone gives a negative comparison, decrement the count.
Sorting a 1-million integer list is very quick and will take less than a second on a modern computer.
That said, the problem is rather ill-posed - It will take you 50 days to show each image only once.
I bet though you are more interested in the most highly ranked images? So, you probably want to bias your image retrieval by predicted rank - so you are more likely to show images that have already achieved a few positive comparisons. This way you will more quickly just start showing 'interesting' images.
I like the quick-sort option but I'd make a few tweeks:
Keep the "comparison" results in a DB and then average them.
Get more than one comparison per view by giving the user 4-6 images and having them sort them.
Select what images to display by running qsort and recording and trimming anything that you don't have enough data on. Then when you have enough items recorded, spit out a page.
The other fun option would be to use the crowd to teach a neural-net.