CODEWITHSUNDEEP
algorithmranking
Lanaru
Lanaru

Reputation: 9721

Quick relative ranking algorithm

Let's say I own 100 video games, and I want to order them from most liked to least liked. It's very hard to give each video game a numeric value that represents how much I like it, so I thought of comparing them to each other.

One solution I came up with is picking 2 random video games, and selecting which one I liked more, and discarding the other one. Unfortunately this solution only lets me know the #1 video game since that would be the last one remaining, and provides little information about the others. I could then repeat the process for the other 99 video games, and so on but that is very impractical: O(n^2).

Are there any O(n) (or just reasonable) algorithms that can be used to sort data based on relative criteria?

Upvotes: 10

Views: 3090

Answers (10)

Chris
Chris

Reputation: 21

While not O(n), a pairwise comparison is one way to rank the elements of a set relative to one another.

To implement the algorithm:

  1. Create a 100x100 matrix
  2. Each row represents a movie, each column represents a movie. The movie at r1 is the same as the movie at c1, r2=c2...r100=c100.

Here is some quick pseudo-code to describe the algorithm: 


    for each row
        for each column
            if row is better than column
                row.score++
            else 
                column.score++
            end
        end
    movie_rating = movie[row] + movie[column]
    sort_by_movie_rating()

Upvotes: 0

Joel Newman
Joel Newman

Reputation: 58

the way I would approach this is to have an array with the game title and a counting slot.

Object[][] Games = new Object[100][2];
Games[0][0] = "Game Title1";
Games[0][1] = 2;
Games[1][0] = "Game Title2";
Games[1][1] = 1;

for every time you vote it should add one to the Games[*][1] slot and from there you can sort based on that.

Upvotes: 0

kdurga
kdurga

Reputation: 97

I dont think it can be done in O(n) time. Best we can get is O(nlogn)using merge or quick sort.

Upvotes: 0

Antti Huima
Antti Huima

Reputation: 25542

If you want to present the games in a sequential order, you need to decide upon it.

It is possible to derive a sequential order from a set of pairwise comparisons.

Here is an example. You have 100 video games. We assume that every video game is associated with a parameter ai (where i ranges from 1 to 100). It is a real number that describes how "much" you like the game. We don't know the values of those parameters yet. We then choose a function that describes how likely it is that you prefer video game i over video game j in terms of the parameters. We choose the logistic curve and define

P[i preferred over j] = 1/(1+eaj - ai)

Now when ai = aj you have P = 0.5, and when, say, ai = 1 and aj = 0 you have P = 1/(1 + e-1) = 0.73, showing that a relative higher parameter values increases the probability that the corresponding video game is preferred.

Now then, when you have your actual comparison results in a table, you use the method of maximum likelihood to calculate the actual values for the parameters ai. Then you sort your video games in descending order of the calculated parameters.

What happens is that the maximum likelihood method calculates those values for the parameters ai that make the actual observed preferences as likely as possible, so the calculated parameters represent the best guess about a total ordering between the video games. Note that for this to work, you need to compare video games to other video games enough many times---every game needs at least one comparison, and the comparisons cannot form disjoint subsets (e.g. you compare A to B to C to A, and D to E to F to D, but there is no comparison between a game from {A,B,C} and a game from {D,E,F}).

Upvotes: 4

aka.nice
aka.nice

Reputation: 9572

One possibility would be to create several criteria C1, C2, ..., Cn like:

  • video quality
  • difficulty
  • interest of scenario
  • ...

You pass each game thru this sieve.

Then you compare a subset of game pairs (2-rank choice), and tells which one you prefer. There exist some Multi-Criteria-Decision-Making/Analysis (MCDM or MCDA) algorithm that will transform your 2-rank choices into a multi-criteria-ranking function, for example one could calculate coefficients a1, ..., an to build a linear ranking function a1*C1+a2*C2+...+an*Cn.

Good algorithms won't let you choose pairs at random but will propose you the pairs to compare based on a non dominated subset.

See wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-criteria_decision_analysis which gives some usefull links, and be prepared to do/read some math.

Or buy a software like ModeFrontier which has some of these algorithms embedded (a bit expensive if just for ranking a library).

Upvotes: 0

angusiguess
angusiguess

Reputation: 639

As to whether there is an O(n) way to sort n objects, there aren't. The lower bound on such a sort would be O(nlogn).

There is a special case, however. If you have a unique and bounded preference, then you can do what's called a bucket sort.

A preference is unique if no two games tie. A preference is bounded if there is a minimum and maximum value for your preference.

Let 1 .. m be the bound for your set of games.

Just create an array with m elements, and place each game in the index according to your preference.

Now you can just do a linear scan over the array for your sorted order.

But of course, that's not comparison-based.

Upvotes: 0

Dennis Meng
Dennis Meng

Reputation: 5187

As a start, you could keep a list and insert each element one-by-one using binary search, giving you an O(n log n) approach.

I'm also certain that you can't beat O(n log n), unless I misunderstood what you want. Basically, what you're telling me is that you want to be able to sort some elements (in your example, video games) using only comparisons.

Think of your algorithm as this: you start with the n! possible ways to arrange your games, and every time you make a comparison, you split the arrangements into POSSIBLE and IMPOSSIBLE, discarding the latter group. (POSSIBLE here meaning that the arrangement is consistent with the comparisons you have made)

In the worst-case scenario, the POSSIBLE group is always at least as big as the IMPOSSIBLE group. In that instance, none of your comparisons reduce the search space by at least a factor of 2, meaning you need at least log_2(n!) = O(n log n) comparisons to reduce the space to 1, giving you your ordering of games.

Upvotes: 0

Dave
Dave

Reputation: 9085

You could use quicksort aka pivot sort. Pick a game, and compare every other game to it, so you have a group of worse game and better games. Repeat for each half recursively. Average case performance is n log n.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicksort

Upvotes: 1

user1759572
user1759572

Reputation: 683

Other way would be to extend your idea. Display more that 2 games and sort them out by your rating. The idea i similar to a merge sort to rate your games. If you pick games for rating correctly you wont need to do a lot of iterations. Just a fiew. IMO O(n) will be quite hard, because your (as a human) observation is limited.

Upvotes: 0

Daniel
Daniel

Reputation: 2515

I understand its hard to quantify how much you like something but what if you created several "fields" that you would judge each game on:

graphics
story
multiplayer
etc...

give each 1-5 out of 5 for each category (changing weights for categories you deem more important). Try to create an objective scale for judging (possibly using external sources, e.g. metacritic)

Then you add them all up which gives an overall rating of how much you like them. Then use a sorting algorithm (MergeSort? InsertionSort?) to place them in order. That would be O(n*m+nlogn) [n = games, m = categories] which is pretty good considering m is likely to be very small.

If you were really determined, you could use machine learning to approximate future games based on your past selection.

Upvotes: -1

Related Questions