Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 105 references

Aggregate-then-Calibrate for Human-centered Assessment with Theoretical Guarantees

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that combining a consensus ranking from crowd judgments with a predictive model's scores, via isotonic projection onto that ranking, yields final assessments strictly closer to ground truth than model-only scores, with prob

desk verdict A clean two-stage idea with solid experiments, but the headline optimality theorem has a load-bearing gap and the theory as written should not be accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02455 v1 pith:OHWSMNFD submitted 2026-08-03 cs.LG stat.ML

Zejun Xie , Xintong Li , Guang Wang , Desheng Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML MSC 62G0862F07
keywords human-centeredassessmentrankaggregationisotonicregressionheterogeneousThurstonemodelcalibrationpairwisecomparisonsjudgmentcrowdsourcing
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 addresses assessment tasks where ground truth is unavailable—like rating delivery-route difficulty or paper quality—and where both human judgments and model scores are imperfect: humans are inconsistent across scales, while models are trained on proxy labels. It proposes Aggregate-then-Calibrate (AtC), which first aggregates pairwise comparisons into a consensus ranking using an annotator-reliability-aware rank aggregation model, then calibrates any predictive model's scores by isotonic regression onto that ranking. The central theoretical claim is that, once the consensus ranking is accurate enough, this projection strictly reduces squared error to the latent true scores compared with the model alone, with probability at least 1−δ1−δ2. If correct, the result gives a principled recipe for fusing cheap human ordinal judgments with model cardinal scores in any domain where ground truth is costly or delayed, and it justifies why 'compare, don't score' is the right way to use people in the loop.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the isotonic cone M_π̂ = {y : y_{π̂(1)} ≤ … ≤ y_{π̂(n)}} induced by the Stage-1 consensus ranking, together with the Euclidean projection onto it. Stage-1's heterogeneous Thurstone model (pairwise choice probability F(γu(si − sj))) supplies the ranking; Stage-2's projection, implemented by the pool-adjacent-violators algorithm, supplies the calibration. The argument turns on the Pythagorean identity for projection onto a closed convex set: once the true score s lies in the cone, ∥sp−s∥² ≥ ∥sp−ŝ∥² + ∥ŝ−s∥², so any violation of the ordering by the model creates a strict gain. The risk analysis additionally uses the statistical dimension of the isotonic cone (the harm

What would settle it

Construct a synthetic Thurstone dataset with tiny true score gaps and high annotator noise so that δ1 and δ2 are large, and compare MSE of ŝ versus sp against ground truth: the bound predicts AtC can be worse than model-only. A sharper test: take a model whose scores already satisfy the true ordering; Theorem 3.12's inequality becomes equality, so any reported strict improvement in that regime indicates an error in the theorem or its proof.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that human comparative judgments and model scores can be composed so that the ordinal information from people acts as a constraint that provably moves model scores toward the truth. Stage-1 estimates a consensus ranking π̂ by fitting a heterogeneous Thurstone model—each annotator gets a precision γu—and Stage-2 computes the closest vector to the model output in Euclidean distance that respects π̂, via isotonic regression. Theorem 3.12 states that if Stage-1's ranking matches the human target's ranking (event A) and that target preserves the ground-truth ordering (event B), then the calibrated output ŝ is strictly closer to s than the raw model score

Load-bearing premise

The guarantee collapses if the human-consensus target ẽ is so noisy relative to true score gaps that its ranking disagrees with the ground-truth ranking (large δ2), or—for the strict inequality—if the model's scores already respect the true ordering (sp ∈ cone).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the consensus ranking is accurate, AtC strictly improves on the raw model under squared error with high probability; the improvement grows with the model's ordinal violations.
  • Because Stage-2 only reorders or averages the model's scores, AtC works with any off-the-shelf predictor and needs no retraining or access to ground truth.
  • Heterogeneous annotator modeling pays off: when annotator reliabilities vary, HTM consensus estimates have strictly smaller asymptotic covariance than homogeneous-model estimates.
  • Calibration remains controlled under misspecification: risk is bounded by a projection term, a statistical term O(σ̃² log n / n), and a bias term O(‖ν‖² / n), so imperfect rankings and biased models do not catastrophically corrupt the output.
  • Empirically, on reading-level and dots-counting tasks, AtC beats human-only and model-only assessments on ranking and distributional metrics, and degrades gracefully under image corruptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I would extend the framework to any ordering source, not just human annotators: the same isotonic projection could calibrate an LLM judge's scores to a ranking produced by another model, with the same risk bound holding as long as the ranking-error events are controlled.
  • The analysis predicts a sharp phase transition in robustness: as pairwise inversions in the consensus ranking cross a threshold set by the expected-inversion term, calibrated performance should collapse (as the experiments show around 500 inversions); a practical rule could stop collecting comparisons once the estimated inversion probability δ1 falls below a target.
  • The tie-creating behavior of PAV suggests a testable consequence: AtC's Kendall-τ gains should concentrate on discordant pairs adjacent to ordinal violations, and the magnitude of the gain should predict the size of the model's ordering violation.
  • For deployment, the 'strict' part of Theorem 3.12 requires the model to actually violate the true ordering; if the model is already well-calibrated in ranking, the guarantee degenerates to equality, so AtC's value is highest when model scores carry useful metric information but wrong local order.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Aggregate-then-Calibrate (AtC), a two-stage framework for human-centered assessment. Stage 1 fits a heterogeneous Thurstone model to pairwise human judgments and extracts a consensus ranking; Stage 2 projects an arbitrary predictive model's score vector onto the isotonic cone defined by that ranking, with the calibrated output given by Euclidean projection. The manuscript claims three theoretical results: (1) heterogeneous rank aggregation is strictly more efficient than homogeneous aggregation (Theorem 3.6); (2) isotonic calibration enjoys risk bounds even when the consensus ranking is misspecified and the effective noise is biased (Theorem 3.8); and (3) AtC asymptotically outperforms model-only assessment with high probability (Theorem 3.12). Experiments on semi-synthetic and real-world datasets are presented in support of the framework.

Significance. If the theoretical guarantees were valid, the paper would make a useful conceptual contribution: combining ordinal human judgments with metric model scores is a principled idea, and the proposed two-stage pipeline is clean and broadly applicable. The paper also makes a good-faith effort to include robustness bounds, pseudo-code, and empirical evaluation, and it promises code release. However, the two headline theoretical results are not established. Theorem 3.6 compares covariance matrices of estimators that converge to different parameters, so the Loewner comparison does not imply better estimation of the true scores. Theorem 3.12's proof uses a covariance for s*-s where the relevant random variable is s*-ẽ, and the omitted subjective-noise term prevents δ1 from vanishing as the Stage-1 sample size grows; the strict-improvement claim also requires an unstated condition that the model scores violate the true ordering. The optimality guarantee therefore reduces essentially to the Pythagorean property of Euclidean projection once the cone is assumed correct, and the probabilistic control of the cone-recovery event is flawed. The empirical results are suggestive but cannot compensate

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 3.12 and Corollary 3.9 / Appendix C.3] Event A={π(s*)≠π(ẽ)} is bounded in Corollary 3.9 using σ²_Xjk=(e_j-e_k)^T Σ_{s*}(e_j-e_k), where Σ_{s*} is the asymptotic covariance of s*−s from Lemma 3.4. But s* estimates s, not ẽ, and the quantity driving A is s*−ẽ = (s*−s)−ε̃. Its covariance is Σ_{s*}+σ̃²I, not Σ_{s*}. This is not a constant-order correction: as N→∞, s*→s, so P(π(s*)≠π(ẽ)) → P(π(s)≠π(ẽ)) = δ2 > 0 whenever σ̃>0 and gaps are finite. Thus Proposition 3.10's claim that δ1=o(1) is false, and Theorem 3.12's assertion that both δ1 and δ2 approach 0 is unsupported. The claimed asymptotic outperformance has no valid basis.
  2. [Theorem 3.12 / Appendix C.3] The strict inequality ∥ŝ−s∥² < ∥s_p−s∥² is derived from the Pythagorean identity and requires ŝ≠s_p, equivalently s_p∉ĉM. If the model scores already satisfy the consensus ordering, projection is the identity and the inequality becomes equality. The main statement of Theorem 3.12 omits this condition; the appendix restatement inserts 'provided that s_p∉M_{π(s)}' only at the end. Since the condition is not part of the theorem statement, the theorem as stated is false. Moreover, the repaired condition involves the unknown target, which limits the usefulness of the guarantee even after correction.
  3. [Theorem 3.6 / Appendix A.5] The theorem compares Σ_{ŝ_hete} (asymptotic covariance around true s*) with Σ_{ŝ_homo} (asymptotic covariance around pseudo-true s∗). A Loewner comparison of covariance matrices is only meaningful for estimators of the same parameter. Under genuine heterogeneity, s∗≠s* in general, so the sandwich covariance describes concentration around a biased limit; no claim of superior accuracy for estimating s* follows. Appendix A.5 asserts the Loewner inequality 'must hold' by CRLB/White theory, but the CRLB does not apply to a QMLE converging to a different parameter. This is a load-bearing gap: the efficiency guarantee is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Remark after Theorem 3.8] The remark refers to 'Theorem 3.5' when discussing the implications of the robustness theorem; it should refer to Theorem 3.8.
  2. [Appendix D.3] The metric labeled MSE is defined with a square root: MSE = sqrt((1/n)Σ(ŝ_i−s_i)²). This is RMSE, not MSE. Please rename or correct the formula for consistency throughout the paper.
  3. [Theorem 3.8] The bound uses E[Inv(bπ,eπ)] but eπ is not defined before the theorem. Define eπ := π(ẽ) explicitly. Also, the display contains an asymptotic O(1/n) term inside an expectation bound; using an asymptotic notation inside a probabilistic inequality is informal and should be replaced with explicit constants.
  4. [Corollary 3.9] The notation Σ_{ŝ} is introduced as the covariance of 'the estimation error ŝ−ẽ', but Lemma 3.4 gives the covariance of the HTM MLE around the true score vector s. The notation conflates these two objects and should be clarified, especially since the distinction is load-bearing for the main theorem.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 3.12 is a conditional projection inequality, not an output that reduces to fitted inputs; flagged δ1/δ2 and sp∉M issues are correctness concerns.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Stage-1 efficiency (Thm 3.6) rests on White's QMLE theory [76]; Stage-2 risk (Thm 3.8) explicitly adapts Bellec's oracle inequality [5] and the known statistical dimension of the isotonic cone; Theorem 3.12 is proved from the Pythagorean identity for Euclidean projection: "Once s belongs to the projection set, the improvement claim follows from the Pythagorean identity ... ∥sp−s∥² ≥ ∥sp−ŝ∥² + ∥ŝ−s∥²." That is a theorem, not an equation of the output to a fitted parameter. The self-citation [79] is only an extended-version statement and no load-bearing lemma is imported from it; the cited HTM [39] and White [76] are external. The paper does have non-circular technical gaps: the theorem statement omits the condition sp∉Mπ(s) that the proof requires, and Corollary 3.9/Appendix C.1 bound δ1 with Σs* from Lemma 3.4, the asymptotic covariance of s*−s, while the event A concerns π(s*) vs π(ẽ), so the ε̃ term is omitted and δ1 need not vanish; δ2 also does not shrink with Stage-1 size. These are correctness/assumption weaknesses, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central theorems rest on strong modeling assumptions: HTM as the true DGP, a Gaussian subjective noise construct ẽ, an unproved efficiency assertion for comparing MLE vs QMLE, and an independence claim that is not justified. There are three implicit free parameters (annotator precisions, subjective noise variance, model bias) whose values are not pinned down by external evidence.

free parameters (3)
  • annotator precision vector γ_u = estimated from data via MLE in Stage-1
    The HTM models each annotator's reliability as a parameter; the efficiency theorem depends on these being heterogeneous (Assumption 3.2).
  • subjective noise variance σ̃²
    The consensus target ẽ = s + ε̃ with ε̃ ~ N(0, σ̃²I_n); σ̃² controls δ2 in Theorem 3.12 and is not estimated or bounded in the paper.
  • model bias vector ν
    s_p = s + ν; the risk bound and optimality theorem depend on ν, but no data-dependent estimate is provided.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math White's regularity conditions (Assumptions 1–6) for MLE/QMLE consistency and normality
    Imported from [76] in Assumption 3.3.
  • domain assumption Pairwise comparisons are generated by a Heterogeneous Thurstone Model with fixed link F
    Assumption 3.2; if the DGP is not HTM, the efficiency comparison is moot.
  • domain assumption Consensus score vector ẽ = s + ε̃ with i.i.d. Gaussian noise
    Section 2.1; this defines the target of Stage-1 but is not derived from any behavioral model.
  • ad hoc to paper Correctly specified MLE is Loewner-no-less-efficient than any misspecified QMLE when estimating the same true parameter
    Used in A.5 to prove Theorem 3.6; this statement is not generally true because the QMLE converges to a pseudo-true parameter and carries bias.
  • ad hoc to paper Events A and B in Theorem 3.12 are independent
    Stated before Theorem 3.12; both events depend on the random vector ẽ, so independence is not established.
invented entities (1)
  • subjective optimal point ẽ
    purpose: Latent consensus score vector that human judgments are assumed to estimate; used as the target of Stage-1 and the anchor for Stage-2 error analysis.
    It is a modeling construct with no direct measurement; its relationship to ground truth s is assumed (ẽ = s + ε̃).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Aggregate-then-Calibrate for Human-centered Assessment with Theoretical Guarantees." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OHWSMNFD

@misc{pith2026260802455,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Aggregate-then-Calibrate for Human-centered Assessment with Theoretical Guarantees},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OHWSMNFD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02455}
}
read the original abstract

Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth. Existing approaches face a dilemma: methods using only human judgments suffer from heterogeneous expertise and inconsistent rating scales, while methods using only model-generated scores must learn from imperfect proxies or incomplete features. We propose Aggregate-then-Calibrate (AtC), a two-stage framework that combines these complementary sources. Stage-1 aggregates heterogeneous comparative judgments into a consensus ranking using a rank-aggregation model that accounts for annotator reliability. Stage-2 calibrates any predictive model's scores by an isotonic projection onto the order, enforcing ordinal consistency while preserving as much of the model's quantitative information as possible. Theoretically, we show: (1) modeling annotator heterogeneity yields strictly more efficient consensus estimation than homogeneity; (2) isotonic calibration enjoys risk bounds even when the consensus ranking is misspecified; and (3) AtC asymptotically outperforms model-only assessment. Across semi-synthetic and real-world datasets, AtC consistently improves accuracy and robustness over human-only or model-only assessments. Our results bridge judgment aggregation with model-free calibration, providing a principled recipe for human-centered assessment when ground truth is costly, scarce, or unverifiable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02455 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. AtC Framework and Its Theoretical Guarantees. Stage-1 aggregates human judgments into a ranking πb; Stage-2 calibrates model scores sp via isotonic projection onto M to obtain bs. Theorems 3.6, 3.8, and 3.12 provide efficiency, risk, and superiority guarantees. 2.2 Stage-1: Judgment Aggregation under Heterogeneous Thurstone Model In Stage-1, we aggregate the human judgments into a single consensus ranking. We formul… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Score Distribution of HRA-E Semi-Synthetic Evaluation. We first evaluate on semi-synthetic setting where ground-truth item scores are available. We simulate m annotators who provide pairwise comparisons, apply various Stage-1 aggregation methods (w/ or w/o modeling annotator heterogeneity) to obtain a consensus score s ∗ , and then train a predictive model to produce an initial model score sp for each item (using a … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Robustness Analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of image corruption types applied to the Dots-activity dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radar plots under different noise conditions (HRA-E). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radar plots under different noise conditions (HRA-G). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radar plots under different noise conditions (HRA-N). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Violin plots of estimated scores for different baseline algorithms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radar plots under different noise conditions (CrowdTCV). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Radar plots under different noise conditions (BTL). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Radar plots under different noise conditions (TCV). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Radar plots under different noise conditions (CrowdBT). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Design and evaluation of crowdsourcing platforms based on users’confidence judgments.Scientific Reports, 14(1):18379,

    Samin Nili Ahmadabadi, Maryam Haghifam, Vahid Shah-Mansouri, and Sara Ershadmanesh. Design and evaluation of crowdsourcing platforms based on users’confidence judgments.Scientific Reports, 14(1):18379,

  2. [2]

    Human expertise in algorithmic prediction

    Rohan Alur, Manish Raghavan, and Devavrat Shah. Human expertise in algorithmic prediction. InThe Thirty- eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=wpGJ2AX6SZ

    2024

  3. [3]

    Living on the edge: Phase transitions in convex programs with random data.Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 3(3):224–294, 2014

    Dennis Amelunxen, Martin Lotz, Michael B McCoy, and Joel A Tropp. Living on the edge: Phase transitions in convex programs with random data.Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 3(3):224–294, 2014

    2014

  4. [4]

    Stop measuring calibration when humans disagree

    Joris Baan, Wilker Aziz, Barbara Plank, and Raquel Fernandez. Stop measuring calibration when humans disagree. In Yoav Goldberg, Zornitsa Kozareva, and Yue Zhang (eds.),Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1892–1915, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 2022. Association for Computational Linguis...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.124 2022

  5. [5]

    Sharp oracle inequalities for least squares estimators in shape restricted regression.The Annals of Statistics, 46(2):745–780, 2018

    Pierre C Bellec. Sharp oracle inequalities for least squares estimators in shape restricted regression.The Annals of Statistics, 46(2):745–780, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Bellec and Alexandre B

    Pierre C. Bellec and Alexandre B. Tsybakov. Sharp oracle bounds for monotone and convex regression through aggregation.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 16(56):1879–1892, 2015. URL http://jmlr.org/ papers/v16/bellec15a.html

    2015

  7. [7]

    Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E. Terry. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons.Biometrika, 39(3/4):324–345, 1952. ISSN 00063444, 14643510. URL http://www.jstor.org/ stable/2334029

    arXiv 1952

  8. [8]

    Rank aggregation with ties: experiments and analysis.Proc

    Bryan Brancotte, Bo Yang, Guillaume Blin, Sarah Cohen-Boulakia, Alain Denise, and Sylvie Hamel. Rank aggregation with ties: experiments and analysis.Proc. VLDB Endow., 8(11):1202–1213, July 2015. ISSN 2150-8097. doi: 10.14778/2809974.2809982. URLhttps://doi.org/10.14778/2809974.2809982

    arXiv 2015

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    On risk bounds in isotonic and other shape restricted regression problems.The Annals of Statistics, 43(4):1774–1800, 2015

    Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Adityanand Guntuboyina, and Bodhisattva Sen. On risk bounds in isotonic and other shape restricted regression problems.The Annals of Statistics, 43(4):1774–1800, 2015. ISSN 00905364. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/43556660

    2015

  2. [10]

    A review of judgment analysis algorithms for crowdsourced opinions.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 32(7):1234–1248, 2020

    Sujoy Chatterjee, Anirban Mukhopadhyay, and Malay Bhattacharyya. A review of judgment analysis algorithms for crowdsourced opinions.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 32(7):1234–1248, 2020. doi: 10.1109/TKDE.2019.2904064

    2020

  3. [11]

    Learning inconsistent preferences with gaussian processes

    Siu Lun Chau, Javier Gonzalez, and Dino Sejdinovic. Learning inconsistent preferences with gaussian processes. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 2266–2281. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Bennett, Kevyn Collins-Thompson, and Eric Horvitz

    Xi Chen, Paul N. Bennett, Kevyn Collins-Thompson, and Eric Horvitz. Pairwise ranking aggregation in a crowdsourced setting. InProceedings of the Sixth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM ’13, pp. 193–202, New York, NY , USA, 2013. Association for C...

    2013

  5. [13]

    Preference learning with gaussian processes

    Wei Chu and Zoubin Ghahramani. Preference learning with gaussian processes. InProceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML ’05, pp. 137–144, New York, NY , USA, 2005. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 1595931805. doi: 10.1145/1102351.11023...

    2005

  6. [14]

    Bias and productivity in humans and algorithms: Theory and evidence from resume screening

    Bo Cowgill. Bias and productivity in humans and algorithms: Theory and evidence from resume screening. Columbia Business School, Columbia University, 29, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Dawes, David Faust, and Paul E

    Robyn M. Dawes, David Faust, and Paul E. Meehl. Clinical versus actuarial judgment.Science, 243(4899): 1668–1674, 1989. ISSN 00368075, 10959203. URLhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1703476. 13

    1989

  8. [16]

    A. P. Dawid and A. M. Skene. Maximum likelihood estimation of observer error-rates using the em algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), 28(1):20–28, 1979. ISSN 00359254, 14679876. URLhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2346806

    1979

  9. [17]

    Isotone optimization in r: pool-adjacent-violators algorithm (pava) and active set methods.Journal of statistical software, 32:1–24, 2010

    Jan De Leeuw, Kurt Hornik, and Patrick Mair. Isotone optimization in r: pool-adjacent-violators algorithm (pava) and active set methods.Journal of statistical software, 32:1–24, 2010

    2010

  10. [18]

    Systematic literature review on city logistics: overview, classification and analysis.International Journal of Production Research, 57(3):865–887, 2019

    Parisa Dolati Neghabadi, Karine Evrard Samuel, and Marie-Laure Espinouse. Systematic literature review on city logistics: overview, classification and analysis.International Journal of Production Research, 57(3):865–887, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Dykstra and Tim Robertson

    Richard L. Dykstra and Tim Robertson. An algorithm for isotonic regression for two or more independent variables.The Annals of Statistics, 10(3):708–716, 1982. ISSN 00905364. URL http://www.jstor.org/ stable/2240899

    1982

  12. [20]

    Cellular infrastructure sharing for network robustness: A citywide empirical study

    Zhihan Fang, Guang Yang, Wenjun Lyu, Zhiqing Hong, Shuxin Zhong, Weijian Zuo, Yuelei Xie, Yu Yang, Guang Wang, Yunhuai Liu, et al. Cellular infrastructure sharing for network robustness: A citywide empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Hierarchical structure sharing empowers multi-task heterogeneous gnns for customer expansion

    Xinyue Feng, Shuxin Zhong, Jinquan Hang, Wenjun Lyu, Yuequn Zhang, Guang Yang, Haotian Wang, Desheng Zhang, and Guang Wang. Hierarchical structure sharing empowers multi-task heterogeneous gnns for customer expansion. InProceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledg...

    2025

  14. [22]

    Neighsqueeze: Compact neighborhood grouping for efficient billion-scale heterogeneous graph learning

    Xinyue Feng, Shuxin Zhong, Jinquan Hang, Yuequn Zhang, Guang Yang, Haotian Wang, Desheng Zhang, and Guang Wang. Neighsqueeze: Compact neighborhood grouping for efficient billion-scale heterogeneous graph learning. InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Infor...

    2025

  15. [23]

    Fielding

    A. Fielding. Statistical Inference Under Order Restrictions. The Theory and Application of Isotonic Regression. Royal Statistical Society. Journal. Series A: General, 137(1):92–93, 12 2018. ISSN 0035-9238. doi: 10.2307/ 2345150. URLhttps://doi.org/10.2307/2345150

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Econometric analysis.Pretence Hall, 2003

    William H Greene. Econometric analysis.Pretence Hall, 2003

    2003

  17. [25]

    Towards equitable assignment: Data-driven delivery zone partition at last-mile logistics

    Baoshen Guo, Shuai Wang, Haotian Wang, Yunhuai Liu, Fanshuo Kong, Desheng Zhang, and Tian He. Towards equitable assignment: Data-driven delivery zone partition at last-mile logistics. InProceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 4...

    2023

  18. [26]

    Outside in: Market-aware heterogeneous graph neural network for employee turnover prediction

    Jinquan Hang, Zheng Dong, Hongke Zhao, Xin Song, Peng Wang, and Hengshu Zhu. Outside in: Market-aware heterogeneous graph neural network for employee turnover prediction. InWSDM ’22, pp. 353–362, Virtual Event,

  19. [27]

    Complex-path: Effective and efficient node ranking with paths in billion-scale heterogeneous graphs.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 17(12), 2024

    Jinquan Hang, Zhiqing Hong, Xinyue Feng, Guang Wang, Dongjiang Cao, Jiayang Qiao, Haotian Wang, and Desheng Zhang. Complex-path: Effective and efficient node ranking with paths in billion-scale heterogeneous graphs.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 17(12), 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Paths2pair: Meta-path based link prediction in billion-scale commercial heterogeneous graphs

    Jinquan Hang, Zhiqing Hong, Xinyue Feng, Guang Wang, Guang Yang, Feng Li, Xining Song, and Desheng Zhang. Paths2pair: Meta-path based link prediction in billion-scale commercial heterogeneous graphs. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and D...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Complementarity in human- ai collaboration: concept, sources, and evidence.European Journal of Information Systems, 34(6):979–1002,

    Patrick Hemmer, Max Schemmer, Niklas K¨uhl, Michael V¨ossing, and Gerhard Satzger. Complementarity in human- ai collaboration: concept, sources, and evidence.European Journal of Information Systems, 34(6):979–1002,

  22. [30]

    Benchmarking neural network robustness to common corruptions and perturbations

    Dan Hendrycks and Thomas Dietterich. Benchmarking neural network robustness to common corruptions and perturbations. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2019. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=HJz6tiCqYm

    2019

  23. [31]

    Online task assignment in crowdsourcing markets

    Chien-Ju Ho and Jennifer Vaughan. Online task assignment in crowdsourcing markets. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 26, pp. 45–51, 2012

    2012

  24. [32]

    Wed-net: A weather-effect disentanglement network with causal augmentation for urban flow prediction

    Qian Hong, Siyuan Chang, and Xiao Zhou. Wed-net: A weather-effect disentanglement network with causal augmentation for urban flow prediction. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2026, WWW ’26, pp. 9625–9633, New York, NY , USA, 2026. Association for Computing Machinery. IS...

    2026

  25. [33]

    Wed-net: A weather-effect disentanglement network with causal augmentation for urban flow prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.22586, 2026

    Qian Hong, Siyuan Chang, and Xiao Zhou. Wed-net: A weather-effect disentanglement network with causal augmentation for urban flow prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.22586, 2026. 14

    2026

  26. [34]

    Cominer: nationwide behavior-driven unsupervised spatial coordinate mining from uncertain delivery events

    Zhiqing Hong, Guang Wang, Wenjun Lyu, Baoshen Guo, Yi Ding, Haotian Wang, Shuai Wang, Yunhuai Liu, and Desheng Zhang. Cominer: nationwide behavior-driven unsupervised spatial coordinate mining from uncertain delivery events. InProceedings of the 30th International Conference o...

    2022

  27. [35]

    Crosshar: Generalizing cross-dataset human activity recognition via hierarchical self-supervised pretraining

    Zhiqing Hong, Zelong Li, Shuxin Zhong, Wenjun Lyu, Haotian Wang, Yi Ding, Tian He, and Desheng Zhang. Crosshar: Generalizing cross-dataset human activity recognition via hierarchical self-supervised pretraining. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., 8(2), May ...

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Explaining preferences with shapley values

    Robert Hu, Siu Lun Chau, Jaime Ferrando Huertas, and Dino Sejdinovic. Explaining preferences with shapley values. In Alice H. Oh, Alekh Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, and Kyunghyun Cho (eds.),Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Mitigating cognitive biases in multi-criteria crowd assessment, 2024

    Shun Ito and Hisashi Kashima. Mitigating cognitive biases in multi-criteria crowd assessment, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18938

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Coride: joint order dispatching and fleet management for multi-scale ride-hailing platforms

    Jiarui Jin, Ming Zhou, Weinan Zhang, Minne Li, Zilong Guo, Zhiwei Qin, Yan Jiao, Xiaocheng Tang, Chenxi Wang, Jun Wang, et al. Coride: joint order dispatching and fleet management for multi-scale ride-hailing platforms. InProceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on...

    1983

  31. [39]

    Rank aggregation via heterogeneous thurstone preference models

    Tao Jin, Pan Xu, Quanquan Gu, and Farzad Farnoud. Rank aggregation via heterogeneous thurstone preference models. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pp. 4353–4360, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data

    Thorsten Joachims. Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. InProceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’02, pp. 133–142, New York, NY , USA, 2002. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 158113567X. d...

    2002

  33. [41]

    Enhancing collective estimates by aggregating cardinal and ordinal inputs

    Ryan Kemmer, Yeawon Yoo, Adolfo Escobedo, and Ross Maciejewski. Enhancing collective estimates by aggregating cardinal and ordinal inputs. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, volume 8, pp. 73–82, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Crowd-calibrator: Can annotator disagreement inform calibration in subjective tasks? InFirst Conference on Language Modeling, 2024

    Urja Khurana, Eric Nalisnick, Antske Fokkens, and Swabha Swayamdipta. Crowd-calibrator: Can annotator disagreement inform calibration in subjective tasks? InFirst Conference on Language Modeling, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=VWWzO3ewMS

    2024

  35. [43]

    Rank aggregation algorithms for fair consensus.Proc

    Caitlin Kuhlman and Elke Rundensteiner. Rank aggregation algorithms for fair consensus.Proc. VLDB Endow., 13(12):2706–2719, jul 2020. ISSN 2150-8097. doi: 10.14778/3407790.3407855. URL https://doi.org/10. 14778/3407790.3407855

    2020

  36. [44]

    Loyalty-based task assignment in spatial crowdsourcing

    Tinghao Lai, Yan Zhao, Weizhu Qian, and Kai Zheng. Loyalty-based task assignment in spatial crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pp. 1014–1023, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    Mantiuk, Junle Wang, Suiyi Ling, and Patrick Le Callet

    Jing Li, Rafał K. Mantiuk, Junle Wang, Suiyi Ling, and Patrick Le Callet. Hybrid-mst: A hybrid active sampling strategy for pairwise preference aggregation. InNeural Information Processing Systems, 2018. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:53046957

    2018

  38. [47]

    Curegraph: Contrastive multi-modal graph representation learning for urban living circle health profiling and prediction.Artificial Intelligence, 340:104278, 2025

    Jinlin Li and Xiao Zhou. Curegraph: Contrastive multi-modal graph representation learning for urban living circle health profiling and prediction.Artificial Intelligence, 340:104278, 2025. ISSN 0004-3702. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2024.104278. URL https://www.scie...

    2025

  39. [48]

    Fap-cd: Fairness-driven age-friendly community planning via conditional diffusion generation.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 39(27):28168–28176, Apr

    Jinlin Li, Xintong Li, and Xiao Zhou. Fap-cd: Fairness-driven age-friendly community planning via conditional diffusion generation.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 39(27):28168–28176, Apr

  40. [49]

    Beyond single models: Mitigating multimodal hallucinations via adaptive token ensemble decoding, 2025

    Jinlin Li, Yuran Wang, Yifei Yuan, Xiao Zhou, Yingying Zhang, Xixian Yong, Yefeng Zheng, and Xian Wu. Beyond single models: Mitigating multimodal hallucinations via adaptive token ensemble decoding, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18321. 15

    2025

  41. [50]

    Xinran Li, Dingdong Yi, and Jun S. Liu. Bayesian Analysis of Rank Data with Covariates and Heterogeneous Rankers.Statistical Science, 37(1):1 – 23, 2022. doi: 10.1214/20-STS818. URL https://doi.org/10.1214/ 20-STS818

    2022 doi

  42. [51]

    URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/ 35036

    doi: 10.1609/aaai.v39i27.35036. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/ 35036

    doi

  43. [52]

    De Jager, David Bennett, The Alzheimer’s Disease Functional Genomics Consortium, Gao Wang, and William R

    Anjing Liu, Philip L. De Jager, David Bennett, The Alzheimer’s Disease Functional Genomics Consortium, Gao Wang, and William R. P. Denault. mfsusie enables multi-cell-type fine-mapping and multi-omic integration of chromatin accessibility qtls in aging brain.bioRxiv, 2025. doi...

    2025 doi

  44. [53]

    Distributional genetic effects reveal context- dependent molecular regulation in human brain aging and alzheimer’s disease.Research square, 11 2025

    Anjing Liu, Roulan Jiang, Ruixi Li, Xuewei Cao, Zining Qi, Ru Feng, Hao Sun, Masashi Fujita, Natacha Comandante-Lou, Chirag Lakhani, Jenny Empawi, David Knowles, Xiaoling Zhang, Kushal Dey, Philip Jager, David Bennett, The Consortium, Tianying Wang, and Gao Wang. Distributiona...

    2025 doi

  45. [54]

    Spatio-temporal hierarchical causal models, 2025

    Xintong Li, Haoran Zhang, and Xiao Zhou. Spatio-temporal hierarchical causal models, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2511.20558

    2025

  46. [55]

    Towards 3d objectness learning in an open world

    Taichi Liu, Zhenyu Wang, Ruofeng Liu, Guang Wang, and Desheng Zhang. Towards 3d objectness learning in an open world. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=wEOmS8Aw1W

    2025

  47. [56]

    Scaneru: Interactive 3d visual grounding based on embodied reference understanding

    Ziyang Lu, Yunqiang Pei, Guoqing Wang, Peiwei Li, Yang Yang, Yinjie Lei, and Heng Tao Shen. Scaneru: Interactive 3d visual grounding based on embodied reference understanding. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pp. 3936–3944, 2024

    2024

  48. [57]

    Learning plackett-luce mixtures from partial preferences.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 33(01):4328–4335, Jul

    Ao Liu, Zhibing Zhao, Chao Liao, Pinyan Lu, and Lirong Xia. Learning plackett-luce mixtures from partial preferences.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 33(01):4328–4335, Jul. 2019. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33014328. URLhttps://ojs.aaai.org/index.php...

    2019 doi

  49. [58]

    Rede: exploring relay transportation for efficient last-mile delivery

    Wenjun Lyu, Haotian Wang, Zhiqing Hong, Guang Wang, Yu Yang, Yunhuai Liu, and Desheng Zhang. Rede: exploring relay transportation for efficient last-mile delivery. In2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pp. 3003–3016. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  50. [59]

    Towards workload-constrained efficient order assignment in last-mile delivery.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2024

    Wenjun Lyu, Xiaolong Jin, Haotian Wang, Yiwei Song, Shuai Wang, Yunhuai Liu, Tian He, and Desheng Zhang. Towards workload-constrained efficient order assignment in last-mile delivery.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2024

    2024

  51. [60]

    Efficient regularized isotonic regression with application to gene–gene interaction search.The Annals of Applied Statistics, 6(1):253 – 283, 2012

    Ronny Luss, Saharon Rosset, and Moni Shahar. Efficient regularized isotonic regression with application to gene–gene interaction search.The Annals of Applied Statistics, 6(1):253 – 283, 2012. doi: 10.1214/11-AOAS504. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1214/11-AOAS504

    2012 doi

  52. [61]

    Mixtures of distance-based models for ranking data.Comput

    Thomas Brendan Murphy and Donald Martin. Mixtures of distance-based models for ranking data.Comput. Stat. Data Anal., 41:645–655, 2003. URLhttps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:42716709

    2003

  53. [62]

    Tsang, Weijie Chen, Gang Niu, and Masashi Sugiyama

    Yuangang Pan, Ivor W. Tsang, Weijie Chen, Gang Niu, and Masashi Sugiyama. Fast and robust rank aggregation against model misspecification.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(23):1–35, 2022. URL http: //jmlr.org/papers/v23/20-315.html

    2022

  54. [63]

    Inco: Exploring inter-trip cooperation for efficient last-mile delivery

    Wenjun Lyu, Shuxin Zhong, Guang Yang, Haotian Wang, Yi Ding, Shuai Wang, Yunhuai Liu, Tian He, and Desheng Zhang. Inco: Exploring inter-trip cooperation for efficient last-mile delivery. InProceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025, pp. 5183–5191, 2025

    2025

  55. [64]

    Raykar, Shipeng Yu, Linda H

    Vikas C. Raykar, Shipeng Yu, Linda H. Zhao, Gerardo Hermosillo Valadez, Charles Florin, Luca Bogoni, and Linda Moy. Learning from crowds.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11(43):1297–1322, 2010. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v11/raykar10a.html

    2010

  56. [65]

    Bayesian modeling of human-AI complementarity.Proc

    Mark Steyvers, Heliodoro Tejeda, Gavin Kerrigan, and Padhraic Smyth. Bayesian modeling of human-AI complementarity.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 119(11):e2111547119, March 2022

    2022

  57. [66]

    Pardo-Vazquez, Juan R

    Jose L. Pardo-Vazquez, Juan R. Casti˜neiras-de Saa, Mafalda Valente, Iris Dami˜ao, Tiago Costa, M. Inˆes Vicente, Andr´eG. Mendonc ¸a, Zachary F. Mainen, and Alfonso Renart. The mechanistic foundation of weber’s law.Nature Neuroscience, 22(9):1493–1502, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s415...

    2019 doi

  58. [67]

    You are the best reviewer of your own papers: An owner-assisted scoring mechanism

    Weijie Su. You are the best reviewer of your own papers: An owner-assisted scoring mechanism. In M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y . Dauphin, P.S. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan (eds.),Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pp. 27929–27939. Curran Associates,...

    2021

  59. [68]

    Topological structural analysis of digitized binary images by border follow- ing.Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 30(1):32–46, 1985

    Satoshi Suzuki and Keiichi Abe. Topological structural analysis of digitized binary images by border follow- ing.Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 30(1):32–46, 1985. ISSN 0734-189X. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/0734-189X(85)90016-7. URL https://www.sciencedirec...

    1985

  60. [69]

    Quentin F. Stout. lp isotonic regression algorithms using an l0 approach, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2107.00251

    2023 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Differentially private (gradient) expectation maximization algorithm with statistical guarantees.CoRR, abs/2010.13520, 2020

    Di Wang, Jiahao Ding, Zejun Xie, Miao Pan, and Jinhui Xu. Differentially private (gradient) expectation maximization algorithm with statistical guarantees.CoRR, abs/2010.13520, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2010.13520

    2010 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Gcrl: Efficient delivery area assignment for last-mile logistics with group-based cooperative reinforcement learning

    Hai Wang, Shuai Wang, Yu Yang, and Desheng Zhang. Gcrl: Efficient delivery area assignment for last-mile logistics with group-based cooperative reinforcement learning. In2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pp. 3522–3534. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  63. [72]

    An open review of openreview: A critical analysis of the machine learning conference review process, 2021

    David Tran, Alexander V Valtchanov, Keshav R Ganapathy, Raymond Feng, Eric Victor Slud, Micah Goldblum, and Tom Goldstein. An open review of openreview: A critical analysis of the machine learning conference review process, 2021. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=Cn706AbJaKW

    2021

  64. [73]

    Dynamic rrh-bbu mapping for c-ran: A data-driven approach

    Shanshan Wang, Fan Wu, Jie Gao, Sijing Duan, Feng Lyu, Huaqing Wu, Yaoxue Zhang, and Xuemin Sherman Shen. Dynamic rrh-bbu mapping for c-ran: A data-driven approach. InGLOBECOM 2023 - 2023 IEEE Global Communications Conference, pp. 2656–2661, 2023. doi: 10.1109/GLOBECOM54140.20...

    2023

  65. [74]

    Fraudulent delivery detection with multimodal courier behavior data in last-mile delivery

    Shanshan Wang, Sijing Duan, Shuxin Zhong, Zhiqing Hong, Zhiyuan Zhou, Hongyu Lin, Weijian Zuo, Desheng Zhang, and Yi Ding. Fraudulent delivery detection with multimodal courier behavior data in last-mile delivery. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Info...

    2025

  66. [75]

    Wicg: In-body cardiac motion sensing based on a mix-medium wi-fi fresnel zone model.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2025

    Pei Wang, Anlan Yu, Xujun Ma, Rong Zheng, Jingfu Dong, Zhaoxin Chang, Duo Zhang, Djamal Zeghlache, and Daqing Zhang. Wicg: In-body cardiac motion sensing based on a mix-medium wi-fi fresnel zone model.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2025

    2025

  67. [76]

    Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models.Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, pp

    Halbert White. Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models.Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, pp. 1–25, 1982

    1982

  68. [77]

    CoAlign: Uncertainty calibration of LLM for geospatial repartition

    Zejun Xie, Zhiqing Hong, Wenjun Lyu, Haotian Wang, Guang Wang, and Desheng Zhang. CoAlign: Uncertainty calibration of LLM for geospatial repartition. In Georg Rehm and Yunyao Li (eds.),Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol...

    2025 doi

  69. [78]

    Practical and white-box anomaly detection through unsupervised and active learning

    Yao Wang, Zhaowei Wang, Zejun Xie, Nengwen Zhao, Junjie Chen, Wenchi Zhang, Kaixin Sui, and Dan Pei. Practical and white-box anomaly detection through unsupervised and active learning. In2020 29th International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN), pp. 1–...

    2020

  70. [79]

    Atc: Aggregate-then-calibrate for human-centered assessment

    Zejun Xie, Xintong Li, Guang Wang, and Desheng Zhang. Atc: Aggregate-then-calibrate for human-centered assessment. InThe Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=XNbVoi9mfr

    2026

  71. [80]

    False discovery rate control and statistical quality assessment of annotators in crowdsourced ranking

    QianQian Xu, Jiechao Xiong, Xiaochun Cao, and Yuan Yao. False discovery rate control and statistical quality assessment of annotators in crowdsourced ranking. In Maria Florina Balcan and Kilian Q. Weinberger (eds.), Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine L...

    2016

  72. [82]

    Carpg: Cross-city knowledge transfer for traffic accident prediction via attentive region-level parameter generation

    Guang Yang, Yuequn Zhang, Jinquan Hang, Xinyue Feng, Zejun Xie, Desheng Zhang, and Yu Yang. Carpg: Cross-city knowledge transfer for traffic accident prediction via attentive region-level parameter generation. 17 InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Inform...

    2023

  73. [83]

    Behavior-aware hypergraph convolutional network for illegal parking prediction with multi-source contextual information

    Guang Yang, Meiqi Tu, Zelong Li, Jinquan Hang, Taichi Liu, Ruofeng Liu, Yi Ding, Yu Yang, and Desheng Zhang. Behavior-aware hypergraph convolutional network for illegal parking prediction with multi-source contextual information. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Con...

    2024

  74. [84]

    Aggregating quantitative relative judgments: From social choice to ranking prediction

    Yixuan Even Xu, Hanrui Zhang, Yu Cheng, and Vincent Conitzer. Aggregating quantitative relative judgments: From social choice to ranking prediction. In A. Globerson, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. Tomczak, and C. Zhang (eds.),Advances in Neural Information Proce...

    2024

  75. [85]

    Mallight: Influence-aware coordinated traffic signal control for traffic signal malfunctions

    Qinchen Yang, Zejun Xie, Hua Wei, Desheng Zhang, and Yu Yang. Mallight: Influence-aware coordinated traffic signal control for traffic signal malfunctions. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM ’24, pp. 2879–2889, ...

    2024

  76. [86]

    Addrllm: Address rewriting via large language model on nationwide logistics data

    Qinchen Yang, Zhiqing Hong, Dongjiang Cao, Haotian Wang, Zejun Xie, Tian He, Yunhuai Liu, Yu Yang, and Desheng Zhang. Addrllm: Address rewriting via large language model on nationwide logistics data. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and D...

    2025

  77. [87]

    Modeling crowdsourcing task complexity

    Jie Yang, Judith Redi, Gianluca Demartini, and Alessandro Bozzon. Modeling crowdsourcing task complexity. In Proceedings of the Fourth AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, pp. 249–258. AAAI, 2016

    2016

  78. [88]

    Risk bounds in isotonic regression.The Annals of Statistics, 30(2):528 – 555, 2002

    Cun-Hui Zhang. Risk bounds in isotonic regression.The Annals of Statistics, 30(2):528 – 555, 2002. doi: 10.1214/aos/1021379864. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1021379864

    2002

  79. [89]

    Revisiting graph convolutional network on semi-supervised node classification from an optimization perspective, 2020

    Hongwei Zhang, Tijin Yan, Zenjun Xie, Yuanqing Xia, and Yuan Zhang. Revisiting graph convolutional network on semi-supervised node classification from an optimization perspective, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2009.11469

    2020 arXiv

  80. [90]

    Finesat: Enhancing gnss signals for high-precision sensing

    Anlan Yu, Xuanzhi Wang, Pei Wang, Jinkun Li, Xujun Ma, Zhiqing Hong, Haotian Wang, Yi Ding, and Daqing Zhang. Finesat: Enhancing gnss signals for high-precision sensing. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom), pp. 25–36. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  81. [91]

    Hypemed: Enhancing medication recommendations with hypergraph-based patient relationships.ACM Trans

    Xiangxu Zhang, Xiao Zhou, Hongteng Xu, and Jianxun Lian. Hypemed: Enhancing medication recommendations with hypergraph-based patient relationships.ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 44(4), May 2026. ISSN 1046-8188. doi: 10.1145/3803851. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3803851

    2026 doi

  82. [92]

    A system-level analysis of conference peer review

    Yichi Zhang, Fang-Yi Yu, Grant Schoenebeck, and David Kempe. A system-level analysis of conference peer review. InProceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC ’22, pp. 1041–1080, New York, NY , USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 978...

    2022

  83. [93]

    D3-tr: Data-driven daily delivery task rescheduling for cost-effective last-mile delivery

    Lidi Zhang, Yinfeng Xiang, Wenjun Lyu, Zhiqing Hong, Haotian Wang, Desheng Zhang, Yunhuai Liu, and Tian He. D3-tr: Data-driven daily delivery task rescheduling for cost-effective last-mile delivery. InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Information and Know...

    2025

  84. [94]

    Automated end-to-end model serving with cooperative compilation and scheduling

    Yikang Zhang, Junlong Chen, Wei Wang, Jia Liu, Nan Hu, and Haipeng Dai. Automated end-to-end model serving with cooperative compilation and scheduling. InProceedings of the Twenty-First European Conference on Computer Systems, EuroSys 2026, Edinburgh, Scotland UK, April 27–30,...

    2026

  85. [95]

    Redone: Revealing domain-specific llm post-training in social networking services

    Fei Zhao, Chonggang Lu, Zheyong Xie, Ziyan Liu, Haofu Qian, Jianzhao Huang, Fangcheng Shi, Zijie Meng, Hongcheng Guo, Mingqian He, et al. Redone: Revealing domain-specific llm post-training in social networking services. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Method...

    2025

  86. [96]

    Semanticcap: Chromatin accessibility prediction enhanced by features learning from a language model.Genes, 13(4), 2022

    Yikang Zhang, Xiaomin Chu, Yelu Jiang, Hongjie Wu, and Lijun Quan. Semanticcap: Chromatin accessibility prediction enhanced by features learning from a language model.Genes, 13(4), 2022. ISSN 2073-4425. doi: 10.3390/genes13040568. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/13/4/568

    2022 doi

  87. [97]

    A cross domain method for customer lifetime value prediction in supply chain platform

    Zhiyuan Zhou, Li Lin, Hai Wang, Xiaolei Zhou, Gong Wei, and Shuai Wang. A cross domain method for customer lifetime value prediction in supply chain platform. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024, pp. 4037–4046, 2024

    2024

  88. [98]

    Multi-sensor data-driven route prediction in instant delivery with a 3-conversion network.ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks, 20(2):1–21, 2024

    Zhiyuan Zhou, Xiaolei Zhou, Baoshen Guo, Shuai Wang, and Tian He. Multi-sensor data-driven route prediction in instant delivery with a 3-conversion network.ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks, 20(2):1–21, 2024

    2024

  89. [99]

    Kephart, Nicholas Mattei, Hui Su, and Lirong Xia

    Zhibing Zhao, Haoming Li, Junming Wang, Jeffrey O. Kephart, Nicholas Mattei, Hui Su, and Lirong Xia. A cost-effective framework for preference elicitation and aggregation. In Amir Globerson and Ricardo Silva (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Conference on Uncertainty in...

    2018

  90. [102]

    sandwich

    Zhiyuan Zhou, Ruofeng Liu, Taichi Liu, Weijian Zuo, Shanshan Wang, Zhiqing Hong, and Desheng Zhang. Any to full: Prompting depth anything for depth completion in one stage, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2603.05711. 19 A Asymptotic Efficiency of the Heterogeneous Thurstone M...

    2026 arXiv

  91. [103]

    Therefore, ∥ΠT cM,uproj (ν)∥ 2 2 ≤ ∥ν∥2 2 (B.40) This inequality holds for any realization of cMand es

    A fundamental property of projection onto a closed convex set is that it does not increase theL 2 norm. Therefore, ∥ΠT cM,uproj (ν)∥ 2 2 ≤ ∥ν∥2 2 (B.40) This inequality holds for any realization of cMand es. Substituting this into the expression for Term 3: Term 3≤E cM,es 2 n ...

  92. [104]

    The true gaps e∆kj = esk − esj between scores (for the first-stage target es) are large, making items more distinguishable

  93. [105]

    This implies that the first-stage algorithm provides precise estimates of score differences

    The variance of the score difference estimates σ∗ Xjk 2 = (ej −e k)T Σs∗ (ej −e k) is small. This implies that the first-stage algorithm provides precise estimates of score differences. The matrix Σs∗ = 1 mk S+ indicates that precision increases with more users (m) or more com...

  94. [106]

    The true gaps∆ kj (s) =s k −s j in the ground truth scoressare large

  95. [107]

    virtual annotator

    The varianceeσ2 of the subjective noise eϵ(which makes esdeviate froms) is small. Thus, δ2 is small if the ground truth scores s are well-separated and the process generating the subjective optimal point esfromshas low noise. D Additional Information of Experiments D.1 Dataset...

  96. [2024]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65892-7

    doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-65892-7. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65892-7

    doi

  97. [2025]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2025.2475962

    doi: 10.1080/0960085X.2025.2475962. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2025.2475962

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.