Determining a winner among a set of items using active pairwise comparisons under a limited budget is a challenging problem in preference-based learning. The goal of this study is to implement and evaluate the PARWiS algorithm, which shows spectral ranking and disruptive pair selection to identify the best item under shoestring budgets. This work have extended the PARWiS with a contextual variant (Contextual PARWiS) and a reinforcement learning-based variant (RL PARWiS), comparing them against baselines, including Double Thompson Sampling and a random selection strategy. This evaluation spans synthetic and real-world datasets (Jester and MovieLens), using budgets of 40, 60, and 80 comparisons for 20 items. The performance is measured through recovery fraction, true rank of reported winner, reported rank of true winner, and cumulative regret, alongside the separation metric Δ1,2. Results show that PARWiS and RL PARWiS outperform baselines across all datasets, particularly in the Jester dataset with a higher Δ1,2, while performance gaps narrow in the more challenging MovieLens dataset with a smaller Δ1,2. Contextual PARWiS shows comparable performance to PARWiS, indicating that contextual features may require further tuning to provide significant benefits.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Dataset Visualizations: (a) Heatmap of the preference matrix for the Synthetic dataset ( k=20 ), showing pairwise probabilities Pi,j . (b) Histogram of ratings for the 20 selected jokes in Jester, ranging from -10 to 10. (c) Histogram of ratings for the 20 selected movies in MovieLens, ranging from 0.5 to 5. (d) Boxplot of Δ1,2 for the Synthetic dataset across 30 runs, showing the distribution of problem difficulty.
Fig. 2: Performance on Synthetic Dataset at B=40 . From left to right: Cumulative Regret, Recovery Fraction, True Rank of Reported Winner, Reported Rank of True Winner. Plots for B=60,80 are in Appendix -A , Figure 5 and 6 .
Fig. 3: Performance on Jester Dataset at B=40 . From left to right: Cumulative Regret, Recovery Fraction, True Rank of Reported Winner, Reported Rank of True Winner. Plots for B=60,80 are in Appendix -A Figure 7 and 8 .
Synthetic ( Δ1,2=0.0152±0.0190 )
Jester ( Δ1,2=0.0946±0.0000 )
MovieLens ( Δ1,2=0.0008±0.0000 )
Agent
B=40
B=60
B=80
B=40
B=60
B=80
B=40
B=60
B=80
Double TS
0.200
0.067
0.267
0.167
0.233
0.467
0.133
0.067
0.067
Random
0.033
0.067
0.000
0.033
0.000
0.067
0.033
0.000
0.067
PARWiS
0.467
0.467
0.467
0.467
0.467
0.467
0.167
0.167
0.167
Contextual PARWiS
0.367
0.367
0.367
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.167
0.167
0.167
RL PARWiS
0.367
0.367
0.367
0.467
0.467
0.467
0.100
0.100
0.100
TABLE I: Recovery fraction across datasets and budgets.
Synthetic ( Δ1,2=0.0152±0.0190 )
Jester ( Δ1,2=0.0946±0.0000 )
MovieLens ( Δ1,2=0.0008±0.0000 )
Agent
B=40
B=60
B=80
B=40
B=60
B=80
B=40
B=60
B=80
Double TS
8.233
6.933
4.767
6.700
4.700
3.133
9.233
10.300
11.500
Random
10.767
10.367
10.733
10.733
9.367
10.733
9.233
11.033
10.767
PARWiS
3.233
3.233
3.233
2.067
2.067
2.067
6.633
6.633
6.633
Contextual PARWiS
3.900
4.067
4.067
2.233
2.233
2.233
6.633
6.633
6.633
RL PARWiS
3.533
3.533
3.533
2.067
2.067
2.067
6.667
6.667
6.667
TABLE II: True rank of reported winner across datasets and budgets.
Synthetic ( Δ1,2=0.0152±0.0190 )
Jester ( Δ1,2=0.0946±0.0000 )
MovieLens ( Δ1,2=0.0008±0.0000 )
Agent
B=40
B=60
B=80
B=40
B=60
B=80
B=40
B=60
B=80
Double TS
35.300
52.933
67.267
34.067
51.167
67.667
36.733
55.767
74.800
Random
36.633
54.833
73.200
36.167
54.233
72.600
37.733
56.767
75.800
PARWiS
11.733
22.000
33.133
9.567
17.600
25.633
18.067
35.100
52.333
Contextual PARWiS
13.067
24.333
35.467
10.167
18.533
27.200
18.100
35.133
52.367
RL PARWiS
14.367
26.300
42.300
11.100
21.667
32.400
19.567
38.633
56.967
TABLE III: Cumulative regret across datasets and budgets.
Fig. 4: Performance on MovieLens dataset at B=40 . From left to right: Cumulative Regret, Recovery Fraction, True Rank of Reported Winner, Reported Rank of True Winner. Plots for B=60,80 are in Appendix -A Figure 9 and 10 .
Fig. 5: Performance on Synthetic Dataset at B=60 . From left to right: Cumulative Regret, Recovery Fraction, True Rank of Reported Winner, Reported Rank of True Winner.
Fig. 6: Performance on Synthetic Dataset at B=80 . From left to right: Cumulative Regret, Recovery Fraction, True Rank of Reported Winner, Reported Rank of True Winner.
Fig. 7: Performance on Jester Dataset at B=60 . From left to right: Cumulative Regret, Recovery Fraction, True Rank of Reported Winner, Reported Rank of True Winner.
Fig. 8: Performance on Jester Dataset at B=80 . From left to right: Cumulative Regret, Recovery Fraction, True Rank of Reported Winner, Reported Rank of True Winner.
Fig. 9: Performance on MovieLens Dataset at B=60 . From left to right: Cumulative Regret, Recovery Fraction, True Rank of Reported Winner, Reported Rank of True Winner.
Fig. 10: Performance on MovieLens Dataset at B=80 . From left to right: Cumulative Regret, Recovery Fraction, True Rank of Reported Winner, Reported Rank of True Winner.
Fig. 11: Distribution of final metric values for Synthetic dataset across runs at budgets B=40,60,80 . Metrics include Cumulative Regret, Recovery Fraction, True Rank of Reported Winner, and Reported Rank of True Winner.
Fig. 12: Distribution of final metric values for Jester dataset across runs at budgets B=40,60,80 . Metrics include Cumulative Regret, Recovery Fraction, True Rank of Reported Winner, and Reported Rank of True Winner.
Fig. 13: Distribution of final metric values for MovieLens dataset across runs at budgets B=40,60,80 . Metrics include Cumulative Regret, Recovery Fraction, True Rank of Reported Winner, and Reported Rank of True Winner.
Synthetic ( Δ1,2=0.0152±0.0190 )
Jester ( Δ1,2=0.0946±0.0000 )
B=40
B=60
B=80
B=40
B=60
B=80
Agent
Fail
Avg TR
Fail
Avg TR
Fail
Avg TR
Fail
Avg TR
Fail
Avg TR
Fail
Avg TR
Double TS
0.800
10.042
0.933
6.929
0.733
6.136
0.833
7.840
0.767
6.304
0.533
5.250
Random
0.967
11.103
0.933
10.357
1.000
10.733
0.967
11.069
1.000
9.367
0.933
11.071
PARWiS
0.533
5.188
0.533
5.188
0.533
5.188
0.533
3.000
0.533
3.000
0.533
3.000
Contextual PARWiS
0.633
5.842
0.633
5.842
0.633
5.842
0.567
3.176
0.567
3.176
0.567
3.176
TABLE IV: Error analysis across synthetic and Jester datasets.
Synthetic ( Δ1,2=0.0152±0.0190 )
Jester ( Δ1,2=0.0946±0.0000 )
MovieLens ( Δ1,2=0.0008±0.0000 )
Agent
B=40
B=60
B=80
B=40
B=60
B=80
B=40
B=60
B=80
PARWiS
4.400
4.267
4.267
2.333
2.333
2.333
7.833
7.833
7.267
Contextual PARWiS
4.433
4.233
4.233
2.000
1.967
2.000
8.400
8.333
8.333
RL PARWiS
5.333
5.433
5.433
2.633
3.133
3.133
9.100
9.100
9.567
TABLE V: Reported rank of true winner across datasets and budgets.
MovieLens ( Δ1,2=0.0008±0.0000 )
B=40
B=60
B=80
Agent
Fail
Avg TR
Fail
Avg TR
Fail
Avg TR
Double TS
0.833
9.920
0.933
11.036
0.933
12.250
Random
0.967
9.552
1.000
11.033
0.933
11.500
PARWiS
0.833
7.760
0.833
7.760
0.833
7.760
Contextual PARWiS
0.833
7.760
0.833
7.760
0.833
7.760
TABLE VI: Error analysis across the MovieLens dataset.
Synthetic
Jester
MovieLens
Budget
B=40
B=60
B=80
B=40
B=60
B=80
B=40
B=60
B=80
t-stat
-2.246
-3.862
-1.616
-2.594
-1.921
0.000
-0.356
-1.201
-1.201
p-value
0.029
0.000
0.112
0.012
0.060
1.000
0.723
0.235
0.235
TABLE VII: Selected t-test results (Double TS vs. PARWiS, Recovery) across datasets and budgets.
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 Ω(1/Δ2) 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/Δ)) 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.
Pairwise Ranking Prompting (PRP) elicits pairwise preference judgments from an LLM, which are then aggregated into a ranking, usually via classical sorting algorithms. However, judgments are noisy, order-sensitive, and sometimes intransitive, so sorting assumptions do not match the setting. Because sorting aims to recover a full permutation, truncating it to meet a call budget does not produce a dependable top-K. We thus reframe PRP reranking as active learning from noisy pairwise comparisons and show that active rankers are drop-in replacements that improve NDCG@10 per call in the call-constrained regime. Our noise-robust framework also introduces a randomized-direction oracle that uses a single LLM call per pair. This approach converts systematic position bias into zero-mean noise, enabling unbiased aggregate ranking without the cost of bidirectional calls.
Jeremías Figueiredo Paschmann, Juan Kaplan, Francisco Nattero +3
ELIAS Lab, Departamento de Ingeniería, Universidad de San Andrés
Estimating consumer preferences is central to many problems in economics and marketing. This paper develops a flexible framework for learning individual preferences from partial ranking information by interpreting observed rankings as collections of pairwise comparisons with logistic choice probabilities. We model latent utility as the sum of interpretable product attributes, item fixed effects, and a low-rank user-item factor structure, enabling both interpretability and information sharing across consumers and items. We further correct for selection in which comparisons are observed: a comparison is recorded only if both items enter the consumer's consideration set, inducing exposure bias toward frequently encountered items. We model pair observability as the product of item-level observability propensities and estimate these propensities with a logistic model for the marginal probability that an item is observable. Preference parameters are then estimated by maximizing an inverse-probability-weighted (IPW), ridge-regularized log-likelihood that reweights observed comparisons toward a target comparison population. To scale computation, we propose a stochastic gradient descent (SGD) algorithm based on inverse-probability resampling, which draws comparisons in proportion to their IPW weights. In an application to transaction data from an online wine retailer, the method improves out-of-sample recommendation performance relative to a popularity-based benchmark, with particularly strong gains in predicting purchases of previously unconsumed products.