You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
For massive and heterogeneous modern datasets, it is of fundamental interest to provide guarantees on the accuracy of estimation when computational resources are limited. In the application of learning to rank, we provide a hierarchy of rank-breaking mechanisms ordered by the complexity in thus generated sketch of the data. This allows the number of data points collected to be gracefully traded off against computational resources available, while guaranteeing the desired level of accuracy. Theoretical guarantees on the proposed generalized rank-breaking implicitly provide such trade-offs, which can be explicitly characterized under certain canonical scenarios on the structure of the data.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: Data in the form of pairwise comparisons arises in many domains, including preference elicitation, sporting competitions, and peer grading among others. We consider parametric ordinal models for such pairwise comparison data involving a latent vector @math that represents the "qualities" of the @math items being compared; this class of models includes the two most widely used parametric models--the Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) and the Thurstone models. Working within a standard minimax framework, we provide tight upper and lower bounds on the optimal error in estimating the quality score vector @math under this class of models. The bounds depend on the topology of the comparison graph induced by the subset of pairs being compared via its Laplacian spectrum. Thus, in settings where the subset of pairs may be chosen, our results provide principled guidelines for making this choice. Finally, we compare these error rates to those under cardinal measurement models and show that the error rates in the ordinal and cardinal settings have identical scalings apart from constant pre-factors.

[2]: This paper explores the preference-based top- @math rank aggregation problem. Suppose that a collection of items is repeatedly compared in pairs, and one wishes to recover a consistent ordering that emphasizes the top- @math ranked items, based on partially revealed preferences. We focus on the Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) model that postulates a set of latent preference scores underlying all items, where the odds of paired comparisons depend only on the relative scores of the items involved. We characterize the minimax limits on identifiability of top- @math ranked items, in the presence of random and non-adaptive sampling. Our results highlight a separation measure that quantifies the gap of preference scores between the @math and @math ranked items. The minimum sample complexity required for reliable top- @math ranking scales inversely with the separation measure irrespective of other preference distribution metrics. To approach this minimax limit, we propose a nearly linear-time ranking scheme, called , that returns the indices of the top- @math items in accordance to a careful score estimate. In a nutshell, Spectral MLE starts with an initial score estimate with minimal squared loss (obtained via a spectral method), and then successively refines each component with the assistance of coordinate-wise MLEs. Encouragingly, Spectral MLE allows perfect top- @math item identification under minimal sample complexity. The practical applicability of Spectral MLE is further corroborated by numerical experiments.

[3]: We are concerned here with establishing the consistency and asymptotic normality for the maximum likelihood estimator of a merit vector (u 0 , ..., u t ), representing the merits of t+1 teams (players, treatments, objects), under the Bradley-Terry model, as t → ∞. This situation contrasts with the well-known Neyman-Scott problem under which the number of parameters grows with t (the amount of sampling), and for which the maximum likelihood estimator fails even to attain consistency. A key feature of our proof is the use of an effective approximation to the inverse of the Fisher information matrix. Specifically, under the Bradley-Terry model, when teams i and j with respective merits u i and u j play each other, the probability that team i prevails is assumed to be u i (u i + u j ). Suppose each pair of teams play each other exactly n times for some fixed n. The objective is to estimate the merits, u i 's, based on the outcomes of the nt(t + 1) 2 games. Clearly, the model depends on the u i 's only through their ratios. Under some condition on the growth rate of the largest ratio u i u j (0 < i, j < t) as t → ∞, the maximum likelihood estimator of (u 1 u 0 u t u 0 ) is shown to be consistent and asymptotically normal. Some simulation results are provided.

[4]: The question of aggregating pair-wise comparisons to obtain a global ranking over a collection of objects has been of interest for a very long time: be it ranking of online gamers (e.g. MSR's TrueSkill system) and chess players, aggregating social opinions, or deciding which product to sell based on transactions. In most settings, in addition to obtaining a ranking, finding scores' for each object (e.g. player's rating) is of interest for understanding the intensity of the preferences. In this paper, we propose Rank Centrality, an iterative rank aggregation algorithm for discovering scores for objects (or items) from pair-wise comparisons. The algorithm has a natural random walk interpretation over the graph of objects with an edge present between a pair of objects if they are compared; the score, which we call Rank Centrality, of an object turns out to be its stationary probability under this random walk. To study the efficacy of the algorithm, we consider the popular Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) model (equivalent to the Multinomial Logit (MNL) for pair-wise comparisons) in which each object has an associated score which determines the probabilistic outcomes of pair-wise comparisons between objects. In terms of the pair-wise marginal probabilities, which is the main subject of this paper, the MNL model and the BTL model are identical. We bound the finite sample error rates between the scores assumed by the BTL model and those estimated by our algorithm. In particular, the number of samples required to learn the score well with high probability depends on the structure of the comparison graph. When the Laplacian of the comparison graph has a strictly positive spectral gap, e.g. each item is compared to a subset of randomly chosen items, this leads to dependence on the number of samples that is nearly order-optimal.

[5]: This paper studies the problem of inferring a global preference based on the partial rankings provided by many users over different subsets of items according to the Plackett-Luce model. A question of particular interest is how to optimally assign items to users for ranking and how many item assignments are needed to achieve a target estimation error. For a given assignment of items to users, we first derive an oracle lower bound of the estimation error that holds even for the more general Thurstone models. Then we show that the Cram 'er-Rao lower bound and our upper bounds inversely depend on the spectral gap of the Laplacian of an appropriately defined comparison graph. When the system is allowed to choose the item assignment, we propose a random assignment scheme. Our oracle lower bound and upper bounds imply that it is minimax-optimal up to a logarithmic factor among all assignment schemes and the lower bound can be achieved by the maximum likelihood estimator as well as popular rank-breaking schemes that decompose partial rankings into pairwise comparisons. The numerical experiments corroborate our theoretical findings.
On the theoretical side, when samples consist of pairwise comparisons, [3] first established consistency and asymptotic normality of the maximum likelihood estimate when all teams play against each other. For a broader class of scenarios where we allow for sparse observations, where the number of total comparisons grow linearly in the number of teams, [4] show that Rank Centrality achieves optimal sample complexity by comparing it to a lower bound on the minimax rate. For a more general class of traditional observations, including pairwise comparisons, [5] provide similar optimal guarantee for the maximum likelihood estimator. [2] introduced Spectral MLE that applies Rank Centrality followed by MLE, and showed that the resulting estimate is optimal in @math error as well as the previously analyzed @math error. [1] study a new measure of the error induced by the Laplacian of the comparisons graph and prove a sharper upper and lower bounds that match up to a constant factor.