Data Driven and Visualization based Strategization for University Rank Improvement using Decision Trees

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.09050v1
• Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 06:41:45 GMT
• Title: Data Driven and Visualization based Strategization for University Rank Improvement using Decision Trees
• Authors: Nishi Doshi and Samhitha Gundam and Bhaskar Chaudhury
• Abstract summary: We present a novel idea of classifying the rankings data using Decision Tree (DT) based algorithms and retrieve decision paths for rank improvement using data visualization techniques. The proposed methodology can aid HEIs to quantitatively asses the scope of improvement, adumbrate a fine-grained long-term action plan and prepare a suitable road-map.
• Score: 1.933681537640272
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Annual ranking of higher educational institutes (HEIs) is a global phenomena and past research shows that they have significant impact on higher education landscape. In spite of criticisms regarding the goals, methodologies and outcomes of such ranking systems, previous studies reveal that most of the universities pay close attention to ranking results and look forward to improving their ranks. Generally, each ranking framework uses its own set of parameters and the data for individual metrics are condensed into a single final score for determining the rank thereby making it a complex multivariate problem. Maintaining a good rank and ascending in the rankings is a difficult task because it requires considerable resources, efforts and accurate planning. In this work, we show how exploratory data analysis (EDA) using correlation heatmaps and box plots can aid in understanding the broad trends in the ranking data, however it is challenging to make institutional decisions for rank improvements completely based on EDA. We present a novel idea of classifying the rankings data using Decision Tree (DT) based algorithms and retrieve decision paths for rank improvement using data visualization techniques. Using Laplace correction to the probability estimate, we quantify the amount of certainty attached with different decision paths obtained from interpretable DT models . The proposed methodology can aid HEIs to quantitatively asses the scope of improvement, adumbrate a fine-grained long-term action plan and prepare a suitable road-map.

Related papers

• Reward-Augmented Data Enhances Direct Preference Alignment of LLMs [56.24431208419858]
  We introduce reward-conditioned Large Language Models (LLMs) that learn from the entire spectrum of response quality within the dataset. We propose an effective yet simple data relabeling method that conditions the preference pairs on quality scores to construct a reward-augmented dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T16:01:51Z)
• Rank Aggregation in Crowdsourcing for Listwise Annotations [37.0231203825557]
  We propose a Listwise rank Aggregation method in Crowdsourcing, where the global position information is carefully measured and included. In our design, an especially proposed annotation quality indicator is employed to measure the discrepancy between the annotated rank and the true rank. We also take the difficulty of the ranking problem itself into consideration, as it directly impacts the performance of annotators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T02:13:21Z)
• A Comprehensive Survey on Underwater Image Enhancement Based on Deep Learning [51.7818820745221]
  Underwater image enhancement (UIE) presents a significant challenge within computer vision research. Despite the development of numerous UIE algorithms, a thorough and systematic review is still absent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T04:46:40Z)
• Learning Fair Ranking Policies via Differentiable Optimization of Ordered Weighted Averages [55.04219793298687]
  This paper shows how efficiently-solvable fair ranking models can be integrated into the training loop of Learning to Rank. In particular, this paper is the first to show how to backpropagate through constrained optimizations of OWA objectives, enabling their use in integrated prediction and decision models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T20:53:53Z)
• Rethinking Object Saliency Ranking: A Novel Whole-flow Processing Paradigm [22.038715439842044]
  This paper proposes a new paradigm for saliency ranking, which aims to completely focus on ranking salient objects by their "importance order" The proposed approach outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods on the widely-used SALICON set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-06T01:51:03Z)
• TRIVEA: Transparent Ranking Interpretation using Visual Explanation of Black-Box Algorithmic Rankers [4.336037935247747]
  Ranking schemes drive many real-world decisions, like, where to study, whom to hire, what to buy, etc. At the heart of most of these decisions are opaque ranking schemes, which dictate the ordering of data entities. We aim to enable transparency in ranking interpretation by using algorithmic rankers that learn from available data and by enabling human reasoning about the learned ranking differences using explainable AI (XAI) methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T16:58:44Z)
• Learning to Rank when Grades Matter [11.981942948477236]
  Graded labels are ubiquitous in real-world learning-to-rank applications. Traditional learning-to-rank techniques ignore predicting actual grades. We propose a multiobjective formulation to jointly optimize both ranking and grade predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T17:30:02Z)
• Integrating Rankings into Quantized Scores in Peer Review [61.27794774537103]
  In peer review, reviewers are usually asked to provide scores for the papers. To mitigate this issue, conferences have started to ask reviewers to additionally provide a ranking of the papers they have reviewed. There are no standard procedure for using this ranking information and Area Chairs may use it in different ways. We take a principled approach to integrate the ranking information into the scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-05T19:39:13Z)
• On the Linear Ordering Problem and the Rankability of Data [0.0]
  We use the degree of linearity to quantify what percentage of the data aligns with an optimal ranking. In a sports context, this is analogous to the number of games that a ranking can correctly predict in hindsight. We show that the optimal rankings computed via the LOP maximize the hindsight accuracy of a ranking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-12T21:05:17Z)
• PiRank: Learning To Rank via Differentiable Sorting [85.28916333414145]
  We propose PiRank, a new class of differentiable surrogates for ranking. We show that PiRank exactly recovers the desired metrics in the limit of zero temperature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-12T05:07:36Z)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.