Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Kernel-based learning methods for preference aggregation

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
4OR Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

The mathematical representation of human preferences has been a subject of study for researchers in different fields. In multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) and fuzzy modeling, preference models are typically constructed by interacting with the human decision maker (DM). However, it is known that a DM often has difficulties to specify precise values for certain parameters of the model. He/she instead feels more comfortable to give holistic judgements for some of the alternatives. Inference and elicitation procedures then assist the DM to find a satisfactory model and to assess unjudged alternatives. In a related but more statistical way, machine learning algorithms can also infer preference models with similar setups and purposes, but here less interaction with the DM is required/allowed. In this article we discuss the main differences between both types of inference and, in particular, we present a hybrid approach that combines the best of both worlds. This approach consists of a very general kernel-based framework for constructing and inferring preference models. Additive models, for which interpretability is preserved, and utility models can be considered as special cases. Besides generality, important benefits of this approach are its robustness to noise and good scalability. We show in detail how this framework can be utilized to aggregate single-criterion outranking relations, resulting in a flexible class of preference models for which domain knowledge can be specified by a DM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis, 2nd version. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop C (2006) Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier C, Brafman R, Domshlak C, Hoos H, Poole D (2004) Cp-nets: a tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. J Artif Intell Res 21: 135–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou D, Marchant T, Pirlot M, Tsoukias A, Vincke P (2006) Evaluation and decision models with multiple criteria. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley R, Terry M (1952) Rank analysis of incomplete block designs. I: The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika 39: 324–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu W, Ghahramani Z (2005) Gaussian processes for ordinal regression. J Mach Learn Res 6: 1019–1041

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu W, Keerthi S (2005) New approaches to support vector ordinal regression. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Bonn, Germany, pp 321–328

  • Crammer K, Singer Y (2001) Pranking with ranking. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, Canada, pp 641–647

  • Cristianini N, Shawe-Taylor J (2000) An introduction to support vector machines. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • De Baets B, De Meyer H (2005) Transitivity frameworks for reciprocal relations: cycle-transitivity versus FG-transitivity. Fuzzy Sets Syst 152: 249–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Baets B, Fodor J (2003) Additive fuzzy preference structures, the next generation. In: De Baets B, Fodor J (eds) Principles of Fuzzy Preference Modelling and Decision Making. Academia Press, New York, pp 15–27

    Google Scholar 

  • De Baets B, Van De Walle B, Kerre E (1995) Fuzzy preference structures without incomparability. Fuzzy Sets Syst 76: 333–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias L, Mousseau V (2006) Inferring ELECTRE’s veto-related parameters from outranking examples. Eur J Oper Res 170: 172–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doumpos M, Zopounidis C (2004) A multicriteria classification approach based on pairwise comparisons. Eur J Oper Res 158: 378–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle J (2004) Prospects for preferences. Comput Intell 20: 111–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan Z, Ma J, Zhang Q (2002) An approach to multiple-attribute decision making based on fuzzy preference information on alternatives. Fuzzy Sets Syst 131: 101–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freund Y, Yier R, Schapire R, Singer Y (2003) An efficient boosting algorithm for combining preferences. J Mach Learn Res 4: 933–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fürnkranz J, Hüllermeier E (2003) Pairwise preference learning and ranking. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2837: 145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gheorghe R, Bufardi A, Xirouchakis P (2004) Construction of two-parameters fuzzy outranking relations from fuzzy evaluations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 143: 391–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gheorghe R, Bufardi A, Xirouchakis P (2005) Construction of global fuzzy preference structures from two-parameter single-criterion fuzzy outranking relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 153: 303–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales C, Perny P (2004) GAI networks for utility elicitation. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp 224–234

  • Grabisch M, Kojadinovic I, Meyer P (2008) A review of methods for capacity identification in Choquet integral based multi-attribute utility theory, applications of the kappalab R package. Eur J Oper Res 186: 766–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco S, Mousseau V, Slowinski R (2008) Ordinal regression revisited: multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions. Eur J Oper Res 191: 415–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2001) The elements of statistical learning. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbrich R, Graepel T, Obermayer K (2000) Large margin rank boundaries for ordinal regression. In: Smola A, Bartlett P, Scholkopf B, Schuurmans D (eds) Advances in Large Margin Classifiers. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 115–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbrich R, Minka T, Graepel T (2007) Trueskill: a bayesian skill rating system. In: Schölkopf B, Platt J, Hoffman T (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, vol 19, pp 569–576

  • Jung S, Hong JH, Kim T-S (2005) A statistical model for user preference. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 17: 834–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kojadinovic I (2004) Estimation of the weights of interacting criteria from the set of profiles by means of information-theoretic functionals. Eur J Oper Res 155: 741–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lievens S, De Baets B, Cao-Van K (2008) A probabilistic framework for the design of instance-based supervised ranking algorithms in an ordinal setting. Ann Oper Res 163: 115–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marichal JL, Meyer P, Roubens M (2005) Sorting multi-attribute alternatives: The TOMASO method. Comput Oper Res 32: 861–877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mousseau V (2005) A general framework for constructive learning preference elicitation in multiple criteria decision aid. Technical report, LAMSADE, Université Paris-Dauphine, France

  • Mousseau V, Slowinski R (1998) Inferring an ELECTRE TRI model from assignment examples. J Global Optim 12: 157–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mousseau V, Figueira J, Naux J (2001) Using assignment examples to infer weights for ELECTRE TRI method: Some experimental results. Eur J Oper Res 130(2): 263–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mousseau V, Dias L, Figueira J (2006) Dealing with inconsistent judgments in multiple criteria sorting. 4OR 4: 145–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öztürk M, Tsoukiàs A, Vincke Ph (2005) Preference modelling. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. State of the art surveys. Springer, Berlin, pp 27–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Perny P (1992) Modelisation, Agrégation et Exploitation de Préférences Floues dans une Problématique de Rangement. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-Dauphine

  • Radlinski F, Joachims T (2007) Active exploration for learning rankings from clickthrough data. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Jose, CA, USA, pp 570–579

  • Rennie JD, Srebro N (2005) Loss functions for preference levels: Regression with discrete, ordered labels. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI Multidisciplinary Workshop on Advances in Preference Handling, Edinburgh, Scotland, pp 180–186

  • Roy B (1991) The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Theory Decision 31(1): 49–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schölkopf B, Smola A (2002) Learning with Kernels, support vector machines, regularisation, optimization and beyond. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Shashua A, Levin A (2003) Ranking with large margin principle: Two approaches. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, Canada. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 937–944

  • Shawe-Taylor J, Cristianini N (2004) Kernel methods for pattern analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Switalski Z (2003) General transitivity conditions for fuzzy reciprocal preference matrices. Fuzzy Sets Syst 137: 85–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone L (1927) A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 79: 281–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Van De Walle B, De Baets B, Kerre E (1998) Characterizable fuzzy preference structures. Ann Oper Res 80: 105–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincke Ph (1992) Multicriteria decision-aid. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Waegeman W, De Baets B, Boullart L (2008a) ROC analysis in ordinal regression learning. Pattern Recognit Lett 29: 1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waegeman W, De Baets B, Boullart L (2008b) On the scalability of ordered multi-class ROC analysis. Comput Stat Data Anal 52: 3371–3388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y-M, Parkan C (2005) Multiple attribute decision making based on fuzzy preference information on alternatives: Ranking and weighting. Fuzzy Sets Syst 153: 331–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu F, Lin C, Weng R (2004) Probability estimates for multi-class support vector machines by pairwise coupling. J Mach Learn Res 5: 975–1005

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electrical Energy, Systems and Automation, Ghent University, Technologiepark 913, 9052, Ghent, Belgium

    Willem Waegeman & Luc Boullart

  2. Department of Applied Mathematics, Biometrics and Process Control, Ghent University, Coupure links 653, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Bernard De Baets

Authors
  1. Willem Waegeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernard De Baets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luc Boullart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Willem Waegeman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Waegeman, W., De Baets, B. & Boullart, L. Kernel-based learning methods for preference aggregation. 4OR-Q J Oper Res 7, 169–189 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10288-008-0085-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10288-008-0085-5

Keywords

MSC classification (2000)

Search

Navigation