Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

This research establishes the theoretical limits for ranking recovery in heterogeneous environments, demonstrating that logarithmic repeated comparisons are both necessary and sufficient under a Bradley-Terry model. By introducing a randomized "Russian Roulette" algorithm, the authors achieve optimal worst-case performance while maintaining constant expected sample complexity per context. These findings provide critical insights for designing efficient preference learning systems where user preferences vary significantly across tasks.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

How Many Repeated Pairwise Comparisons Are Needed for Ranking under Heterogeneity?

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.10795v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We study ranking models by population-average utility from pairwise comparisons when preferences vary across users and tasks. Prior work shows that a single comparison per user can be insufficient to identify the alternative with the highest average utility, even with arbitrarily many users (Golz et al., 2025). We investigate how many repeated comparisons within each user-task context are necessary and sufficient for ranking recovery. Under a heterogeneous Bradley-Terry model with fixed inverse temperature, we start with a naive MLE-based algorithm that requires $\Omega(1/\Delta^2)$ repeated comparisons per context to ensure ranking recovery. We then present two MLE-based variants and a randomized Russian Roulette-style algorithm that recover the ranking using $O(\log(1/\Delta))$ repeated comparisons per context, and we prove that this logarithmic dependence is optimal. Despite this worst-case requirement, our Russian Roulette algorithm uses only $O(1)$ comparisons per context in expectation. Synthetic experiments and semi-synthetic experiments based on Arena data compare the four algorithms in settings with varying levels of preference heterogeneity and under varying context distributions.

Title:How Many Repeated Pairwise Comparisons Are Needed for Ranking under Heterogeneity?

Abstract:We study ranking models by population-average utility from pairwise comparisons when preferences vary across users and tasks. Prior work shows that a single comparison per user can be insufficient to identify the alternative with the highest average utility, even with arbitrarily many users (Golz et al., 2025). We investigate how many repeated comparisons within each user-task context are necessary and sufficient for ranking recovery. Under a heterogeneous Bradley-Terry model with fixed inverse temperature, we start with a naive MLE-based algorithm that requires $\Omega(1/\Delta^2)$ repeated comparisons per context to ensure ranking recovery. We then present two MLE-based variants and a randomized Russian Roulette-style algorithm that recover the ranking using $O(\log(1/\Delta))$ repeated comparisons per context, and we prove that this logarithmic dependence is optimal. Despite this worst-case requirement, our Russian Roulette algorithm uses only $O(1)$ comparisons per context in expectation. Synthetic experiments and semi-synthetic experiments based on Arena data compare the four algorithms in settings with varying levels of preference heterogeneity and under varying context distributions.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Information Theory (cs.IT)

arXiv:2610.10795 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.10795v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.10795 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 272 words

Related coverage