UI はローカライズ済みです。スキルの紹介と説明文書は選択した言語へ AI が自動翻訳し、コード・コマンド・パス・専門用語は原文のままです。原作者の文書が優先されます。
スキルを探す
開発・技術 · SKILL.md

algo-rank-wilson

algo-rank-wilson

Calculate Wilson Score confidence intervals for ranking items by positive proportion with sample size correction. Use this skill when the user needs to rank products by ratings, sort content by approval rate, or build a 'best rated' list that accounts for sample size — even if they say 'rank by star rating', 'best rated with few reviews', or 'confidence-adj…

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

スキルの説明

GitHub

name: "algo-rank-wilson" description: "Calculate Wilson Score confidence intervals for ranking items by positive proportion with sample size correction. Use this skill when the user needs to rank products by ratings, sort content by approval rate, or build a 'best rated' list that accounts for sample size — even if they say 'rank by star rating', 'best rated with few reviews', or 'confidence-adjusted rating'." metadata: category: "WP-44 排名演算法" tags: ["ranking", "wilson-score", "confidence-interval", "rating"]

Wilson Score Ranking

Overview

Wilson Score interval provides a lower confidence bound on the true proportion of positive ratings. Unlike simple averages, it penalizes items with few ratings, preventing a 5/5 review item (1 review) from outranking a 4.8/5 item (1000 reviews). Computes in O(1) per item.

When to Use

Trigger conditions:

  • Ranking items by user ratings when review counts vary widely
  • Building "top rated" or "best of" lists that are fair to well-reviewed items
  • Sorting binary feedback (upvote/downvote) with confidence

When NOT to use:

  • For continuous scores (use Bayesian average instead)
  • When comparing items with similar sample sizes (simple average suffices)

Algorithm

IRON LAW: Never Rank by Simple Average When Sample Sizes Differ
A 5.0 average from 1 review is NOT better than 4.8 from 1000 reviews.
Wilson Score lower bound accounts for sample uncertainty:
Items with few ratings get a LOWER bound, properly reflecting our
uncertainty about their true quality.

Phase 1: Input Validation

Collect per item: number of positive ratings (p), total ratings (n). For star ratings, convert to binary (e.g., 4-5 stars = positive). Gate: n > 0 for all items, confidence level chosen (typically 95%, z=1.96).

Phase 2: Core Algorithm

  1. Compute observed proportion: p̂ = positive / total
  2. Wilson lower bound: (p̂ + z²/2n - z × √(p̂(1-p̂)/n + z²/4n²)) / (1 + z²/n)
  3. Rank by Wilson lower bound descending (conservative estimate of true quality)

Phase 3: Verification

Check: items with many positive reviews rank above items with few reviews and same proportion. Items with very few reviews are appropriately penalized. Gate: Ranking intuitively correct on manual inspection.

Phase 4: Output

Return ranked items with scores and confidence intervals.

Output Format

{
  "rankings": [{"item": "Product_A", "wilson_lower": 0.89, "positive": 950, "total": 1000, "proportion": 0.95}],
  "metadata": {"confidence": 0.95, "z": 1.96, "items_ranked": 500}
}

Examples

Sample I/O

Input: Item A: 1 positive / 1 total (100%). Item B: 950 positive / 1000 total (95%). Expected: B ranks higher. Wilson lower: A ≈ 0.05, B ≈ 0.94. The single review gives almost no confidence.

Edge Cases

InputExpectedWhy
0 reviewsCannot rankn=0, undefined. Exclude or assign minimum
0 positive, 100 totalVery low scoreGenuinely bad item, high confidence
1M positive, 1M totalLower bound ≈ 1.0Massive sample, high confidence in 100%

Gotchas

  • Binary conversion: For 5-star ratings, the positive/negative threshold matters. 4+ stars as positive? 3+ stars? Different thresholds produce different rankings.
  • Not for continuous data: Wilson Score is for proportions (binary outcomes). For continuous ratings, use Bayesian average with a prior.
  • Cold start: New items with zero reviews can't be ranked. Use a minimum review threshold or Bayesian smoothing.
  • Confidence level choice: Higher confidence (99%) penalizes small samples more aggressively. 95% is standard but tune for your use case.
  • Sorting by lower bound is conservative: This approach favors well-known items. For discovery/exploration, consider also boosting items with high upper bounds (potential hidden gems).

Scripts

ScriptDescriptionUsage
scripts/wilson_score.pyCompute Wilson score interval and rank itemspython scripts/wilson_score.py --help

Run python scripts/wilson_score.py --verify to execute built-in sanity tests.

References

  • For Bayesian average alternative, see references/bayesian-average.md
  • For Reddit's ranking algorithm (Wilson-based), see references/reddit-ranking.md
保存したスキル