Assumption-free stability for ranking problems

Jake A. Soloff; Rebecca Willett; Rina Foygel Barber; Ruiting Liang

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Assumption-free stability for ranking problems

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read If a score learner changes little when one data point is removed, the inflated top-k and inflated full ranking operators make top-k selection and full ranking provably stable, with no distributional assumptions.

desk verdict A correct and useful top-k stability extension; the full-ranking guarantee is mathematically sound but weaker than advertised because output sets can become exponentially large. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02257 v1 pith:JGAKLL7E submitted 2025-06-02 stat.ML cs.LGmath.STstat.MEstat.TH

Ruiting Liang , Jake A. Soloff , Rina Foygel Barber , Rebecca Willett This is my paper

classification stat.MLcs.LGmath.STstat.MEstat.TH

keywords algorithmicstabilitytop-kselectionfullrankingset-valuedoutputinflatedargmaxbaggingdistribution-freeguarantee

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether top-$k$ selection and full ranking can be made stable under small perturbations of the training data, without assuming a separation gap between items' scores. It proposes two set-valued operators—the inflated top-$k$ and the inflated full ranking—that return a small set of candidates or a set of possible rankings when the data is ambiguous. The central deliverable is a theorem: if the underlying score-learning algorithm $A$ changes its score vector by less than $\varepsilon$ in Euclidean norm when one data point is removed, with probability at least $1-\delta$, then composing either operator with $A$ yields a ranking procedure that is stable with the same $\delta$, for any sample size $n\ge 2$, any $k$, and any number of items $L$, with no distributional assumptions. This matters because conventional ranking theory typically requires a separation between true scores, a condition real data such as near-tied movie ratings often violates; here the output grows only slightly—a few extra candidates or a handful of rankings—and the guarantee holds uniformly over every data set.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the two inflated ranking operators, defined from a margin parameter $\varepsilon$. The inflated top-$k$ is $\text{top-k}^{(\varepsilon)}(w) = \{ j : \operatorname{dist}(w, C^{\varepsilon,k}_j) < \varepsilon \}$, where $C^{\varepsilon,k}_j$ is the closed set of score vectors in which item $j$ beats the $(k+1)$-st best item by at least $\varepsilon/\sqrt{2}$; for $k=1$ this reduces to the inflated argmax of Soloff et al. (2024a). The inflated full ranking is $\text{ranking}^{(\varepsilon)}(w) = \{ \pi \in S_L : 1 \in \operatorname{argmax}^{(\varepsilon)}(w_{\pi(k)},\dots,w_{\pi(L)}) \text{ for every } k \}$, an iterative construction that requires each successive item to be an inflated-argmax winner of the remaining subvector. The argument runs on a single geometric transfer property: whenever $\lVert w-v\rVert<\varepsilon$, the two inflated outputs overlap—at least $k$ shared items for top-$k$, and at least one shared permutation for full ranking—so that any $(\varepsilon,\delta)$-stable $A$ transfers its stability to the composed ranking procedure, with no distributional assumptions.

What would settle it

Fix any data set $D$ and any certified $(\varepsilon,\delta)$-stable algorithm $A$—for instance vote counting, where $\varepsilon=\sqrt{2}/n$ and $\delta=0$—and compute the empirical fraction of leave-one-out indices $i$ for which $|\text{top-k}^{(\varepsilon)}(A(D)) \cap \text{top-k}^{(\varepsilon)}(A(D\backslash i))| < k$ (or, for full ranking, for which the two output sets are disjoint). The theorem guarantees this fraction is at most $\delta$, so any data set where the fraction exceeds $\delta$ refutes the claim; equivalently, one could search directly over score vectors $w,v$ with $\lVert w-v\rVert<\varepsilon$ for a violation of the geometric intersection property (3) or (5).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that instability in Step 2 of a two-stage ranking pipeline—sorting scores or selecting the top $k$—can be eliminated without any assumptions on the data or on the base score-learning algorithm, at the price of allowing the output to be a set. Concretely, fix any learning algorithm $A$ that maps a data set $D$ to a score vector and satisfies the $(\varepsilon,\delta)$-stability inequality: for a uniformly random index $i$, $\lVert A(D) - A(D\backslash i)\rVert < \varepsilon$ with probability at least $1-\delta$. Define the $\varepsilon$-inflated top-$k$ of a score vector $w$ as the set of items $j$ whose score vector lies within distance $\varepsilon$ of some vector in which $j$ is a top-$k$ item by a margin of $\varepsilon/\sqrt{2}$; define the $\varepsilon$-inflated full ranking as all permutations $\pi$ such that, at every step $k$, the inflated argmax of the remaining subvector $(w_{\pi(k)},\dots,w_{\pi(L)})$ selects its first entry. Then $\text{top-k}^{(\varepsilon)}\circ A$ has top-$k$ stability $\delta$ and $\text{ranking}^{(\varepsilon)}\circ A$ has full ranking stability $\delta$: for every data set $D$, with probability at least $1-\delta$ over the choice of $i$, the outputs on $D$ and $D\backslash i$ share at least $k$ items (top-$k$) or share at least one ranking (full ranking). Moreover, both operators are minimal in a precise sense: any permutation-invariant alternative that satisfies the same stability condition returns a set of size $k$ at least as rarely as the inflated top-$k$, and the inflated full ranking preserves every definite pairwise order that any such alternative asserts.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the score-learning algorithm $A$ is $(\varepsilon,\delta)$-stable: removing one data point at random changes $A$'s score vector by less than $\varepsilon$ in Euclidean norm with probability at least $1-\delta$; if $A$ fails this condition, the inflated operators provide no stability certificate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the preference-voting setting, where A is (√2/n, 0)-stable, the theorems give fully deterministic leave-one-out stability: for every voter i and every vote data set, the inflated top-k outputs on D and D\i share at least k items, and the inflated full ranking outputs always share a ranking.
For any bounded-output score learner, applying bagging to A makes it (ε,δ)-stable with ε²δ ∝ 1/n, so the guarantee applies to essentially arbitrary learned score functions without distributional requirements on the data.
Because the bound is uniform over data sets and independent of L, the stability guarantee cannot degrade as the candidate pool grows or as the data become more adversarial.
The optimality propositions imply that when the scores are unambiguous the inflated operators return exactly k items or a single permutation, so the price of stability is paid only in genuinely ambiguous cases.
Computing the inflated top-k reduces to computing the inflated argmax of the subvector beginning at the k-th position, so the method remains feasible even with many candidates.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The transfer mechanism is purely geometric—a Lipschitz-type overlap property in score space—which suggests a general recipe: any discontinuous downstream operation whose output can be encoded by margin constraints on scores could be stabilized by an analogous inflated, set-valued counterpart.
The full-ranking output set can contain many permutations; the paper bounds each item's possible positions but does not give a compact representation or an efficient sampler, so applying inflated full ranking to very large L would need additional algorithmic work.
A natural extension the paper leaves open is data-driven selection of ε: choosing ε by calibration could let a practitioner control the achieved stability level δ while minimizing the average size of the returned sets.
The paper treats deterministic algorithms; extending the definitions to randomized score learners would require a stability notion that accounts for the algorithm's internal randomness, which the paper only sketches in a footnote.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The top-k part of this paper is a clean, correct generalization of the inflated argmax. The operator is natural, the proof of Theorem 4 is right, and Proposition 6 makes it computationally easy. The optimality result in Proposition 5 is also sound and gives a real sense in which the method is minimal. This will be a useful reference for anyone building stable selection procedures without separation assumptions.

The full-ranking construction is more interesting but also more fragile. The iterative definition in Definition 7 is sensible, and Theorem 8's proof via the shared-permutation induction is correct. Proposition 9 is a nice optimality statement about pairwise orderings. But the stress-test note lands: Definition 2 only asks for a nonempty intersection, and when the score vector has many near-ties, ranking(ε)(w) is the set of all linear extensions of a partial order, which can be L! permutations. Then f(D) ∩ f(D\i) ≠ ∅ is nearly automatic, and the stability guarantee is trivially satisfied. The paper is transparent about the set-valued nature, and Proposition 10 does bound each item's possible position, but that does not control the total number of permutations. The synthetic experiment uses only L=5 with average output size 1.76, so the behavior at realistic L is genuinely unresolved. This is a limitation in the informativeness of the full-ranking output, not an error in the theorems.

Two smaller caveats. The title says "assumption-free," but the guarantee is conditional on A satisfying the (ε,δ)-stability inequality (1). The paper says this clearly in Section 2.1, but it is still a conditional guarantee, and "assumption-free" refers only to the data distribution. Also, the full-ranking output has no compact representation provided; the position bounds are helpful but not enough to make the output usable for large L.

Overall: the proofs are correct, the writing is honest, and the top-k contribution is solid. The full-ranking stability notion is valid but should be accompanied by a discussion of output set size, or a stronger stability definition that controls informativeness. I would send this to peer review and ask the authors to address the full-ranking output-size issue; the top-k result can be accepted more or less as is.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops set-valued ranking operators for top-k selection and full ranking, generalizing the inflated argmax of Soloff et al. (2024a). For a score vector w and radius ε, top-k(ε)(w) returns all items that can be brought into the top k by a perturbation of w of size < ε, and ranking(ε)(w) returns all permutations consistent with iteratively applying the inflated argmax. The main results (Theorems 4 and 8) show that if the score-learning algorithm A satisfies the (ε,δ)-stability condition (1), then top-k(ε)∘A has top-k stability δ and ranking(ε)∘A has full ranking stability δ for every dataset and every n ≥ 2, with no distributional assumptions and no dependence on the number L of items. The paper also proves optimality statements (Propositions 5 and 9), efficient-computation results (Propositions 6 and 10), relations between the operators (Propositions 11–13), and reports experiments on Netflix and simulated data.

Significance. The proofs in the appendix are careful and, as far as I can verify, correct; the paper provides a clean finite-sample transfer from score-level stability to ranking-level stability, with uniform guarantees over datasets. The permutation-invariance and the reduction to the inflated argmax are elegant, and the connection to bagging makes the required score-stability condition achievable for a broad class of base learners. The open-source code and reproducible experimental setup are also a strength. The principal caveat, discussed below, is that the full-ranking guarantee relies on a nonempty-intersection condition that can be satisfied trivially when the output set of permutations is exponentially large; this limits the practical force of the 'without compromising informativeness' claim but does not invalidate the theorems.

major comments (2)

[Section 2.3, Definition 2 and Theorem 8] The full-ranking stability guarantee is weaker than it appears. If the entries of w all lie within ε/√2 of one another, then ranking(ε)(w) = S_L, so the nonempty-intersection condition in Definition 2 is automatically satisfied and conveys no information about whether the two output sets are meaningfully similar. Proposition 10 bounds each item's possible position but does not prevent an exponential number of consistent permutations, and the full-ranking experiment uses only L = 5 with average output size 1.76, leaving the large-L regime unresolved. The claim that the method offers stability 'without compromising informativeness' is therefore not established as stated. The authors should state explicitly that ranking(ε)(w) is the set of linear extensions of the threshold partial order {i ≺ j : w_i ≥ w_j + ε/√2}, which gives a compact representation and makes the exponential-size issue transparent, and they should qualify the informativeness claim or argue why nonempty intersection is the right notion despite this behavior. Relatedly, Proposition 9 does not rule out trivial behavior: the constant function R(w) = S_L satisfies all of its hypotheses, so the optimality statement does not imply that ranking(ε)(w) is small when w has near-ties.
[Section 2.1, Eq. (1), and the abstract/title] The word 'assumption-free' overstates the scope of the results. Theorems 4 and 8 are conditional on A satisfying the (ε,δ)-stability inequality (1); although this is not a distributional assumption, it is a genuine condition on the base algorithm. For an arbitrary black-box A the condition must be verified or enforced, for instance by bagging, and the paper should say so in the title or abstract. Qualifying the headline as 'distribution-free' or 'conditional on score stability' would make the actual scope of the guarantee clear to the reader.

minor comments (4)

[Section 2.2–2.3, theorem/proposition references] In Theorems 4 and 8, the references to 'Thm. 1' and 'Thm. 2' should be to Definition 1 and Definition 2, respectively. In the paragraph after Definition 7, the references to 'Thm. 6' and 'Thm. 7' should be to Proposition 6 and Definition 7.
[Appendix A.1, proof of Theorem 4] The phrase 'by Thm. 13' should read 'by Lemma 13', since the result is labelled as a lemma.
[Section 3.1, Netflix experiment] The experiment chooses ε = 0.01, but the paper does not verify that the shrinkage-averaged score learner satisfies Eq. (1) with this ε; for the raw vote-counting example the bound would be ε = √2/n ≈ 0.0014. The reported δj values are therefore an illustrative check of the method's behavior rather than a direct verification of Theorem 4.
[Section 3.2, full-ranking simulation] The simulated full-ranking experiment uses L = 5, which is too small to demonstrate the behavior of ranking(ε) when L is large; a brief discussion of scalability or the expected output-set size would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stability theorems reduce only to the prior inflated-argmax intersection lemma and standard geometric arguments, not to their own conclusions.

full rationale

The central claims (Thms. 4 and 8) are conditional statements: if a score-learning algorithm A satisfies the user-supplied (ε,δ)-stability bound in eq. (1), then the composed operators top-k(ε)∘A and ranking(ε)∘A satisfy top-k or full-ranking stability at the same δ. No parameter is fitted to data; ε is a free hyperparameter and the theorems are stated for every ε>0, while δ is inherited unchanged from the assumed bound on A. The key analytic content is property (3) for top-k and property (5) for full ranking: whenever ||w−v||<ε, the inflated output sets overlap by at least k elements (or share a permutation). The proofs reduce these properties to the inflated-argmax intersection lemma from Soloff et al. (2024a, Thm. 9) plus elementary order-statistic and rearrangement arguments. That cited lemma concerns the k=1 case and is a prior proved theorem, not a restatement of the present results; the new operators are not defined in terms of the stability events they are claimed to satisfy. The optimality results (Props. 5 and 9) are proved inside the paper by swapping-argument contradictions, not imported as external uniqueness constraints. The self-citations are load-bearing but function as independent mathematical lemmas with stated assumptions that do not include the target results, so they do not make the derivation circular. The only notable weakness is practical rather than logical: ranking(ε)(w) can contain many permutations when scores are nearly tied, making the nonempty-intersection stability condition easier to satisfy and the output potentially uninformative for large L; Prop. 10 bounds item positions but does not give a compact representation. This affects the strength of the advertised guarantee, not the validity or independence of the derivation chain. No circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a mathematical methods paper. The only free design parameter is epsilon. The heavy lifting is inherited from the inflated argmax results of Soloff et al. (2024a), which are prior published theorems and are not re-derived here. There are no fitted constants, and the stability guarantees hold for every epsilon.

free parameters (1)

epsilon (inflation radius) = 0.01 (Netflix top-k experiments), 0.05 (full ranking simulation); arbitrary positive in theory
User-chosen inflation radius. The stability guarantee holds for every epsilon > 0, so epsilon is not fitted to make the theorems true; it trades set size against stability.

assumptions (3)

standard math Inflated argmax non-empty intersection: for any dimension m, if ||w - v|| < epsilon then argmax^(epsilon)(w) ∩ argmax^(epsilon)(v) is non-empty.
Taken from Soloff et al. (2024a, Thm. 9). Used in the proofs of Thms. 4 and 8 and Lemma 13.
standard math Inflated argmax singleton characterization and containment: argmax^(epsilon)(u) = {j} iff u_j >= max_{i neq j} u_i + epsilon / sqrt(2); and argmax^(epsilon)(u) is contained in {i : u_i > max_{i'} u_{i'} - epsilon / sqrt(2)}.
Taken from Soloff et al. (2024a, Lemma 15 and Prop. 20). Used in the proofs of Props. 5, 9 and 10.
standard math Rearrangement inequality: for a sorted vector w, the closest point to a permutation of a given vector is achieved by matching sorted orders.
Used without proof in the proof of Thm. 6 to bound distances after reordering subvectors.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assumption-free stability for ranking problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JGAKLL7E

@misc{pith2026250602257,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assumption-free stability for ranking problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JGAKLL7E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02257}
}

abstract

In this work, we consider ranking problems among a finite set of candidates: for instance, selecting the top-$k$ items among a larger list of candidates or obtaining the full ranking of all items in the set. These problems are often unstable, in the sense that estimating a ranking from noisy data can exhibit high sensitivity to small perturbations. Concretely, if we use data to provide a score for each item (say, by aggregating preference data over a sample of users), then for two items with similar scores, small fluctuations in the data can alter the relative ranking of those items. Many existing theoretical results for ranking problems assume a separation condition to avoid this challenge, but real-world data often contains items whose scores are approximately tied, limiting the applicability of existing theory. To address this gap, we develop a new algorithmic stability framework for ranking problems, and propose two novel ranking operators for achieving stable ranking: the \emph{inflated top-$k$} for the top-$k$ selection problem and the \emph{inflated full ranking} for ranking the full list. To enable stability, each method allows for expressing some uncertainty in the output. For both of these two problems, our proposed methods provide guaranteed stability, with no assumptions on data distributions and no dependence on the total number of candidates to be ranked. Experiments on real-world data confirm that the proposed methods offer stability without compromising the informativeness of the output.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02257 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Feature Bagging Provides Stability
stat.ML 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Feature bagging provably reduces feature instability relative to non-bagged learners, with larger gains under aggressive feature subsampling and modest ensemble size.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

and Zhang, J

Adomavicius, G. and Zhang, J. (2016). Classification, ranking, and top-k stability of recommendation algorithms.INFORMS Journal on Computing, 28(1):129–147

work page 2016
[2]

and Niyogi, P

Agarwal, S. and Niyogi, P. (2009). Generalization bounds for ranking algorithms via algorithmic stability.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 10(2)

work page 2009
[3]

W., Deldjoo, Y., Di Noia, T., Malitesta, D., and Merra, F

Anelli, V. W., Deldjoo, Y., Di Noia, T., Malitesta, D., and Merra, F. A. (2021). A study of defensive methods to protect visual recommendation against adversarial manipulation of images. InProceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 1094–1103

work page 2021
[4]

Asudeh, A., Jagadish, H., Miklau, G., and Stoyanovich, J. (2018). On obtaining stable rankings. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 12(3):237–250

work page 2018
[5]

and Lanning, S

Bennett, J. and Lanning, S. (2007). The Netflix Prize. InProceedings of the KDD Cup Workshop 2007, pages 3–6. ACM

work page 2007
[6]

and Elisseeff, A

Bousquet, O. and Elisseeff, A. (2002). Stability and generalization.The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2:499–526. 11

work page 2002
[7]

Bradley, R. A. and Terry, M. E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons.Biometrika, 39(3/4):324–345

work page 1952
[8]

Cao, Z., Qin, T., Liu, T.-Y., Tsai, M.-F., and Li, H. (2007). Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. InProceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 129–136

work page 2007

Show all 28 references

[9]

Chen, Y., Fan, J., Ma, C., and Wang, K. (2019). Spectral method and regularized MLE are both optimal for top-k ranking.Annals of statistics, 47(4):2204

2019
[10]

Chzhen, E., Denis, C., Hebiri, M., and Lorieul, T. (2021). Set-valued classification–overview via a unified framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.12318. Del Coz, J. J., D ´ ıez, J., and Bahamonde, A. (2009). Learning nondeterministic classifiers.Journal of Machine Learning Resea...

2021 arXiv
[11]

Devic, S., Korolova, A., Kempe, D., and Sharan, V. (2024). Stability and multigroup fairness in ranking with uncertain predictions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09326

2024 arXiv
[12]

P., Reingold, O., Rothblum, G

Dwork, C., Kim, M. P., Reingold, O., Rothblum, G. N., and Yona, G. (2019). Learning from outcomes: Evidence-based rankings. In2019 IEEE 60th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 106–125. IEEE

2019
[13]

Elisseeff, A., Evgeniou, T., Pontil, M., and Kaelbing, L. P. (2005). Stability of randomized learning algorithms.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6(1)

2005
[14]

and Zhou, Z.-H

Gao, W. and Zhou, Z.-H. (2013). Uniform convergence, stability and learnability for ranking problems. InIJCAI, pages 1337–1343

2013
[15]

Grycko, E. (1993). Classification with set-valued decision functions. InInformation and Classification:

1993
[16]

Gesellschaft f¨ ur Klassifikation eV

Concepts, Methods and Applications Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the “Gesellschaft f¨ ur Klassifikation eV” University of Dortmund, April 1–3, 1992, pages 218–224. Springer

1992
[17]

Guo, R., Ton, J.-F., Liu, Y., and Li, H. (2023). Inference-time stochastic ranking with risk control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07188

2023 arXiv
[18]

Jaccard, P. (1912). The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone.The New Phytologist, 11(2):37–50

1912
[19]

Lan, Y., Liu, T.-Y., Qin, T., Ma, Z., and Li, H. (2008). Query-level stability and generalization in learning to rank. InProceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 512–519

2008
[20]

Lei, J. (2014). Classification with confidence.Biometrika, 101(4):755–769

2014
[21]

Liu, T.-Y. et al. (2009). Learning to rank for information retrieval.Foundations and Trends®in Information Retrieval, 3(3):225–331

2009
[22]

Oh, S., Ustun, B., McAuley, J., and Kumar, S. (2022). Rank list sensitivity of recommender systems to interaction perturbations. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 1584–1594. 12

2022
[23]

Oh, S., Ustun, B., McAuley, J., and Kumar, S. (2024). Finest: Stabilizing recommendations by rank-preserving fine-tuning.ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, 18(9):1–22

2024
[24]

Sadinle, M., Lei, J., and Wasserman, L. (2019). Least ambiguous set-valued classifiers with bounded error levels.J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 114(525):223–234

2019
[25]

Singh, A., Kempe, D., and Joachims, T. (2021). Fairness in ranking under uncertainty.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:11896–11908

2021
[26]

A., Barber, R

Soloff, J. A., Barber, R. F., and Willett, R. (2024c). Stability via resampling: statistical problems beyond the real line.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09511

2024 arXiv
[27]

(2005).Algorithmic learning in a random world

Vovk, V., Gammerman, A., and Shafer, G. (2005).Algorithmic learning in a random world. Springer, New York

2005
[28]

Yang, K., Stoyanovich, J., Asudeh, A., Howe, B., Jagadish, H., and Miklau, G. (2018). A nutritional label for rankings. InProceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data, pages 1773–1776. A Proofs of theoretical results A.1 Proof of Thm. 4 As discussed a...

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

and Zhang, J

Adomavicius, G. and Zhang, J. (2016). Classification, ranking, and top-k stability of recommendation algorithms.INFORMS Journal on Computing, 28(1):129–147

work page 2016

[2] [2]

and Niyogi, P

Agarwal, S. and Niyogi, P. (2009). Generalization bounds for ranking algorithms via algorithmic stability.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 10(2)

work page 2009

[3] [3]

W., Deldjoo, Y., Di Noia, T., Malitesta, D., and Merra, F

Anelli, V. W., Deldjoo, Y., Di Noia, T., Malitesta, D., and Merra, F. A. (2021). A study of defensive methods to protect visual recommendation against adversarial manipulation of images. InProceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 1094–1103

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Asudeh, A., Jagadish, H., Miklau, G., and Stoyanovich, J. (2018). On obtaining stable rankings. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 12(3):237–250

work page 2018

[5] [5]

and Lanning, S

Bennett, J. and Lanning, S. (2007). The Netflix Prize. InProceedings of the KDD Cup Workshop 2007, pages 3–6. ACM

work page 2007

[6] [6]

and Elisseeff, A

Bousquet, O. and Elisseeff, A. (2002). Stability and generalization.The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2:499–526. 11

work page 2002

[7] [7]

Bradley, R. A. and Terry, M. E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons.Biometrika, 39(3/4):324–345

work page 1952

[8] [8]

Cao, Z., Qin, T., Liu, T.-Y., Tsai, M.-F., and Li, H. (2007). Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. InProceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 129–136

work page 2007