arXiv — Machine Learning · · 3 min read

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

Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Computer Science > Machine Learning

arXiv:2610.10795 (cs)
[Submitted on 7 Oct 2026]

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

View a PDF of the paper titled How Many Repeated Pairwise Comparisons Are Needed for Ranking under Heterogeneity?, by Shashaank Aiyer and Han Shao
View PDF HTML (experimental)
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.
Comments: 53 pages, 4 figures
Subjects: Machine Learning (cs.LG); Information Theory (cs.IT)
Cite as: arXiv:2610.10795 [cs.LG]
  (or arXiv:2610.10795v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.10795
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Shashaank Aiyer [view email]
[v1] Wed, 7 Oct 2026 18:52:18 UTC (1,223 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

Additional Features

Current browse context:

cs.LG
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
IArxiv recommender toggle
IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

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.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — Machine Learning