Regret-Minimizing Representative Databases

PVLDB 2010
Regret-Minimizing Representative Databases
Atish Das Sarma, Danupon Nanongkai, Ashwin Lall, Richard J.Lipton, Jim Xu, Atish Das Sarma, Danupon Nanongkai, Ashwin Lall, Richard J.Lipton, Jim Xu
Abstract

We propose the k-representative regret minimization query (k-regret) as an operation to support multi-criteria decision making. Like top-k, the k-regret query assumes that users have some utility or scoring functions; however, it never asks the users to provide such functions.

Like skyline, it filters out a set of interesting points from a potentially large database based on the users' criteria; however, it never overwhelms the users by outputting too many tuples.

In particular, for any number k and any class of utility functions, the k-regret query outputs k tuples from the database and tries to minimize the maximum regret ratio. This captures how disappointed a user could be had she seen k representative tuples instead of the whole database. We focus on the class of linear utility functions, which is widely applicable.

The first challenge of this approach is that it is not clear if the maximum regret ratio would be small, or even bounded. We answer this question affirmatively. Theoretically, we prove that the maximum regret ratio can be bounded and this bound is independent of the database size.

Moreover, our extensive experiments on real and synthetic datasets suggest that in practice the maximum regret ratio is reasonably small. Additionally, algorithms developed in this paper are practical as they run in linear time in the size of the database and the experiments show that their running time is small when they run on top of the skyline operation which means that these algorithm could be integrated into current database systems.

Another publication from the same category: Machine Learning and Data Science

WWW '17 Perth Australia April 2017

Drawing Sound Conclusions from Noisy Judgments

David Goldberg, Andrew Trotman, Xiao Wang, Wei Min, Zongru Wan

The quality of a search engine is typically evaluated using hand-labeled data sets, where the labels indicate the relevance of documents to queries. Often the number of labels needed is too large to be created by the best annotators, and so less accurate labels (e.g. from crowdsourcing) must be used. This introduces errors in the labels, and thus errors in standard precision metrics (such as P@k and DCG); the lower the quality of the judge, the more errorful the labels, consequently the more inaccurate the metric. We introduce equations and algorithms that can adjust the metrics to the values they would have had if there were no annotation errors.

This is especially important when two search engines are compared by comparing their metrics. We give examples where one engine appeared to be statistically significantly better than the other, but the effect disappeared after the metrics were corrected for annotation error. In other words the evidence supporting a statistical difference was illusory, and caused by a failure to account for annotation error.

Keywords