mirror of
https://github.com/wassname/Open-Assistant.git
synced 2026-06-27 16:10:30 +08:00
simple scoring system for prompts and ranks
This commit is contained in:
Alexander Mattick
@@ -1,9 +1,10 @@
|
||||
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
|
||||
from dataclasses import dataclass
|
||||
from dataclasses import dataclass, replace
|
||||
from typing import Any
|
||||
|
||||
import numpy as np
|
||||
import numpy.typing as npt
|
||||
from scipy.stats import kendalltau
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@dataclass
|
||||
@@ -18,7 +19,15 @@ class Voter:
|
||||
uid: Any
|
||||
num_votes: int
|
||||
num_good_votes: int
|
||||
total_points: int
|
||||
num_prompts: int
|
||||
num_good_prompts: int
|
||||
num_rankings: int
|
||||
num_good_rankings: int
|
||||
|
||||
#####################
|
||||
voting_points: int
|
||||
prompt_points: int
|
||||
ranking_points: int
|
||||
|
||||
def voter_quality(self):
|
||||
return self.num_good_votes / self.num_votes
|
||||
@@ -26,11 +35,22 @@ class Voter:
|
||||
def is_well_behaved(self, threshhold):
|
||||
return self.voter_quality() > threshhold
|
||||
|
||||
def total_points(self, voting_weight, prompt_weight, ranking_weight):
|
||||
return (
|
||||
voting_weight * self.voting_points
|
||||
+ prompt_weight * self.prompt_points
|
||||
+ ranking_weight * self.ranking_points
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
def score_update(new_vote: int, consensus: npt.ArrayLike, voter_data: Voter) -> Voter:
|
||||
|
||||
def score_update_votes(new_vote: int, consensus: npt.ArrayLike, voter_data: Voter) -> Voter:
|
||||
"""
|
||||
This function returns the new "quality score" and points for a voter.
|
||||
I.e. a voter casts a vote on a question.
|
||||
This function returns the new "quality score" and points for a voter,
|
||||
after that voter cast a vote on a question.
|
||||
|
||||
This function is only to be run when archiving a question
|
||||
i.e. the question has had sufficiently many votes, or we cann't get more than "K" bits of information
|
||||
|
||||
The consensus is the array of all votes cast by all voters for that question
|
||||
We then update the voter data using the new information
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -45,21 +65,111 @@ def score_update(new_vote: int, consensus: npt.ArrayLike, voter_data: Voter) ->
|
||||
# produces the ranking of votes, e.g. for [100,300,200] it returns [0, 2, 1],
|
||||
# since 100 is the lowest, 300 the highest and 200 the middle value
|
||||
consensus_ranking = np.argsort(np.argsort(consensus))
|
||||
new_points = consensus_ranking[new_vote] + voter_data.total_points
|
||||
new_points = consensus_ranking[new_vote] + voter_data.voting_points
|
||||
|
||||
# we need to correct for 0 indexing, if you are closer to "right" than "wrong" of the conensus,
|
||||
# it's a good vote
|
||||
new_good_votes = int(consensus_ranking[new_vote] > (len(consensus) - 1) / 2) + voter_data.num_good_votes
|
||||
new_num_votes = voter_data.num_votes + 1
|
||||
return Voter(voter_data.uid, new_num_votes, new_good_votes, new_points)
|
||||
return replace(voter_data, num_votes=new_num_votes, num_good_votes=new_good_votes, voting_points=new_points)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def score_update_prompts(consensus: npt.ArrayLike, voter_data: Voter) -> Voter:
|
||||
"""
|
||||
This function returns the gain of points for a given prompt's votes
|
||||
|
||||
This function is only to be run when archiving a question
|
||||
i.e. the question has had sufficiently many votes, or we cann't get more than "K" bits of information
|
||||
|
||||
Parameters:
|
||||
consensus (ArrayLike): all votes cast for this question
|
||||
voter_data (Voter): a "Voter" object that represents the person that wrote the prompt
|
||||
|
||||
Returns:
|
||||
updated_voter (Voter): the new "quality score" and points for the voter
|
||||
"""
|
||||
# produces the ranking of votes, e.g. for [100,300,200] it returns [0, 2, 1],
|
||||
# since 100 is the lowest, 300 the highest and 200 the middle value
|
||||
consensus_ranking = np.argsort(np.argsort(consensus)) - len(consensus) // 2
|
||||
delta_votes = np.sum(consensus_ranking * consensus)
|
||||
new_points = delta_votes + voter_data.prompt_points
|
||||
|
||||
# we need to correct for 0 indexing, if you are closer to "right" than "wrong" of the conensus,
|
||||
# it's a good vote
|
||||
new_good_prompts = int(delta_votes > 0) + voter_data.num_good_prompts
|
||||
new_num_prompts = voter_data.num_prompts + 1
|
||||
return replace(
|
||||
voter_data,
|
||||
num_prompts=new_num_prompts,
|
||||
num_good_prompts=new_good_prompts,
|
||||
prompt_points=new_points,
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def score_update_ranking(user_ranking: npt.ArrayLike, consensus_ranking: npt.ArrayLike, voter_data: Voter) -> Voter:
|
||||
"""
|
||||
This function returns the gain of points for a given ranking's votes
|
||||
|
||||
This function is only to be run when archiving a question
|
||||
i.e. the question has had sufficiently many votes, or we cann't get more than "K" bits of information
|
||||
|
||||
we use the bubble-sort distance (or "kendall-tau" distance) to compare the two rankings
|
||||
we use this over spearman correlation since:
|
||||
"[Kendall's τ] approaches a normal distribution more rapidly than ρ, as N, the sample size, increases;
|
||||
and τ is also more tractable mathematically, particularly when ties are present"
|
||||
Gilpin, A. R. (1993). Table for conversion of Kendall's Tau to Spearman's
|
||||
Rho within the context measures of magnitude of effect for meta-analysis
|
||||
|
||||
Further in
|
||||
"research design and statistical analyses, second edition, 2003"
|
||||
the authors note that at least from an significance test POV they will yield the same p-values
|
||||
|
||||
Parameters:
|
||||
user_ranking (ArrayLike): ranking produced by the user
|
||||
consensus (ArrayLike): ranking produced after running the voting algorithm to merge into the consensus ranking
|
||||
voter_data (Voter): a "Voter" object that represents the person that wrote the prompt
|
||||
|
||||
Returns:
|
||||
updated_voter (Voter): the new "quality score" and points for the voter
|
||||
"""
|
||||
bubble_sort_distance, p_value = kendalltau(user_ranking, consensus_ranking)
|
||||
# normalize kendall-tau from [-1,1] into [0,1] range
|
||||
bubble_sort_distance = (1 + bubble_sort_distance) / 2
|
||||
new_points = bubble_sort_distance + voter_data.ranking_points
|
||||
# it's a good ranking if the likelihood that the consensus ranking and the
|
||||
# user ranking are related
|
||||
new_good_rankings = int(p_value < 0.5) + voter_data.num_good_rankings
|
||||
new_num_rankings = voter_data.num_rankings + 1
|
||||
return replace(
|
||||
voter_data,
|
||||
num_rankings=new_num_rankings,
|
||||
num_good_rankings=new_good_rankings,
|
||||
ranking_points=new_points,
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
if __name__ == "__main__":
|
||||
demo_voter = Voter("abc", 10, 2, 6)
|
||||
demo_voter = Voter(
|
||||
"abc",
|
||||
num_votes=10,
|
||||
num_good_votes=2,
|
||||
num_prompts=10,
|
||||
num_good_prompts=2,
|
||||
num_rankings=10,
|
||||
num_good_rankings=2,
|
||||
voting_points=6,
|
||||
prompt_points=0,
|
||||
ranking_points=0,
|
||||
)
|
||||
new_vote = 3
|
||||
consensus = np.array([200, 300, 100, 500])
|
||||
print(demo_voter)
|
||||
print("best vote", score_update(new_vote, consensus, demo_voter))
|
||||
print("best vote ", score_update_votes(new_vote, consensus, demo_voter))
|
||||
new_vote = 2
|
||||
print("worst vote", score_update(new_vote, consensus, demo_voter))
|
||||
print("worst vote ", score_update_votes(new_vote, consensus, demo_voter))
|
||||
new_vote = 1
|
||||
print("medium vote", score_update(new_vote, consensus, demo_voter))
|
||||
print("medium vote ", score_update_votes(new_vote, consensus, demo_voter))
|
||||
print("prompt writer", score_update_prompts(consensus, demo_voter))
|
||||
print("best rank ", score_update_ranking(np.array([0, 2, 1]), np.array([0, 2, 1]), demo_voter))
|
||||
print("medium rank ", score_update_ranking(np.array([2, 0, 1]), np.array([0, 2, 1]), demo_voter))
|
||||
print("worst rank ", score_update_ranking(np.array([1, 0, 2]), np.array([0, 2, 1]), demo_voter))
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user