A Clustering Model for Uncertain Preferences Based on Belief Functions

  • Yiru ZhangEmail author
  • Tassadit Bouadi
  • Arnaud Martin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11031)


Community detection is a popular topic in network science field. In social network analysis, preference is often applied as an attribute for individuals’ representation. In some cases, uncertain and imprecise preferences may appear. Moreover, conflicting preferences can arise from multiple sources. From a model for imperfect preferences we proposed earlier, we study the clustering quality in case of perfect preferences as well as imperfect ones based on weak orders (orders that are complete, reflexive and transitive). The model for uncertain preferences is based on the theory of belief functions with an appropriate dissimilarity measure when performing the clustering steps. To evaluate the quality of clustering results, we used Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) and silhouette score on synthetic data as well as on Sushi preference data set collected from real world. The results show that our model has an equivalent quality with traditional preference representations for certain cases while it has better quality confronting imperfect cases.


Clustering for orders Imperfect preference modeling Theory of belief functions 


  1. 1.
    Belnap, N.D.: A useful four-valued logic. In: Dunn, J.M., Epstein, G. (eds.) Modern Uses of Multiple-valued Logic. EPIS, vol. 2, pp. 5–37. Springer, Dordrecht (1977). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dempster, A.P.: Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Ann. Math. Statist. 38(2), 325–339 (1967)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Denoeux, T., Kanjanatarakul, O., Sriboonchitta, S.: EK-NNclus. Know. Based Syst. 88(C), 57–69 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elarbi, F., Bouadi, T., Martin, A., Ben Yaghlane, B.: Preference fusion for community detection in social networks. In: 24ème Conférence sur la Logique Floue et ses Applications. Poitiers, France, November 2015Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Essaid, A., Martin, A., Smits, G., Ben Yaghlane, B.: A Distance-based decision in the credal level. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Symbolic Computation (AISC2014), pp. 147–156. Sevilla, Spain, December 2014Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fagin, R., Kumar, R., Mahdian, M., Sivakumar, D., Vee, E.: Comparing and aggregating rankings with ties. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-third ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, PODS 2004, pp. 47–58. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hubert, L., Arabie, P.: Comparing partitions. J. Classif. 2(1), 193–218 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jousselme, A.L., Maupin, P.: Distances in evidence theory: comprehensive survey and generalizations. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 53(2), 118–145 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kamishima, T.: Nantonac collaborative filtering: recommendation based on order responses. In: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD 2003, pp. 583–588. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kamishima, T., Akaho, S.: Efficient clustering for orders. In: Zighed, D.A., Tsumoto, S., Ras, Z.W., Hacid, H. (eds.) Mining Complex Data. Studies in Computational Intelligence, pp. 261–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Masson, M.H., Destercke, S., Denoeux, T.: Modelling and predicting partial orders from pairwise belief functions. Soft Comput. 20(3), 939–950 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Newman, M.E.J.: Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103(23), 8577–8582 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Öztürké, M., Tsoukiàs, A., Vincke, P.: Preference Modelling, pp. 27–59. Springer, New York (2005). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Qin, M., Jin, D., He, D., Gabrys, B., Musial, K.: Adaptive community detection incorporating topology and content in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2017, pp. 675–682. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rousseeuw, P.J.: Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 20, 53–65 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shafer, G.: A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1976)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tasgin, M., Bingol, H.O.: Community detection using preference networks. Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 495, 126–136 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang, J., McAuley, J., Leskovec, J.: Community detection in networks with node attributes. In: 13th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM 2013), pp. 1151–1156. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang, Y., Bouadi, T., Martin, A.: Preference fusion and Condorcet’s paradox under uncertainty. In: 20th International Conference on Information Fusion, FUSION 2017, pp. 1–8. Xi’an, China (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang, Y., Bouadi, T., Martin, A.: An empirical study to determine the optimal \(k\) in EK-NNclus method. In: 5th International Conference on Belief Functions, BELIEF 2018. Compiègne, France (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Univ Rennes 1, CNRS, IRISARennesFrance

Personalised recommendations