Learning intransitive reciprocal relations with kernel methods

European Journal of Operational Research

Volumn 206, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 676-685

  Pahikkala, Tapio ^a   Waegeman, Willem ^b   Tsivtsivadze, Evgeni ^c   Salakoski, Tapio ^a   De Baets, Bernard ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Decision theory; Game theory; Kernel methods; Preference learning; Reciprocal relations; Transitivity; Utility functions

Indexed keywords

KERNEL METHODS; PREFERENCE LEARNING; RECIPROCAL RELATIONS; TRANSITIVITY; UTILITY FUNCTIONS;

ANIMALS; DECISION MAKING; DECISION THEORY; LEARNING ALGORITHMS; LEARNING SYSTEMS; STOCHASTIC MODELS; STOCHASTIC SYSTEMS;

GAME THEORY;

EID: 77951114862     PISSN: 03772217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2010.03.018     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. second version (2002), John Wiley and Sons
2. Azand P. The philosophy of intransitive preferences. The Economic Journal 103 (1993) 337-346
3. Ballinger T., and Wilcox P. Decisions, error and heterogeneity. The Economic Journal 107 (1997) 1090-1105
4. Billot A. An existence theorem for fuzzy utility functions: A new elementary proof. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 74 (1995) 271-276
5. Boddy L. Interspecific combative interactions between wood-decaying basidiomycetes. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 31 (2000) 185-194
6. Bradley R., and Terry M. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs. I: The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika 39 (1952) 324-345
7. Carroll J., De Soete G., and De Sarbo W. Two stochastic multidimensional choice models for marketing research. Decision Sciences 21 (1990) 337-356
8. Chu, W., Ghahramani, Z., 2005. Preference learning with gaussian processes. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Bonn, Germany, pp. 137-144.
9. Chu W., and Keerthi S. Support vector ordinal regression. Neural Computation 19 3 (2007) 792-815
10. Crammer K., and Singer Y. Pranking with ranking. Proceedings of the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (2001), Vancouver, Canada 641-647
11. Czárán T., Hoekstra R., and Pagie L. Chemical warfare between microbes promotes biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 2 (2002) 786-790
12. Dasgupta M., and Deb R. Transitivity and fuzzy preferences. Social Choice and Welfare 13 (1996) 305-318
13. De Baets B., and De Meyer H. Transitivity frameworks for reciprocal relations: Cycle-transitivity versus FG-transitivity. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 152 (2005) 249-270
14. De Baets B., De Meyer H., De Schuymer B., and Jenei S. Cyclic evaluation of transitivity of reciprocal relations. Social Choice and Welfare 26 (2006) 217-238
15. De Baets, B., De Meyer, H., De Loof, K., submitted for publication. On the cycle-transitivity of the mutual rank probability relation of a poset. Fuzzy Sets and Systems.
16. De Loof K., De Baets B., and De Meyer H. Counting linear extension majority cycles in posets on up to 13 points. Computers and Mathematics with Applications 59 (2010) 1541-1547
17. De Schuymer B., De Meyer H., De Baets B., and Jenei S. On the cycle-transitivity of the dice model. Theory and Decision 54 (2003) 164-185
18. De Schuymer B., De Meyer H., and De Baets B. Optimal strategies for equal-sum dice games. Discrete Applied Mathematics 154 (2006) 2565-2576
19. De Schuymer B., De Meyer H., and De Baets B. Optimal strategies for symmetric matrix games with partitions. Bulletin of the Belgian Mathematical Society - Simon Stevin 16 (2009) 67-89
20. Dhzafarov E. Thurstonian-type representations for same-different discriminations: Deterministic decisions and independent images. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 47 (2003) 184-204
21. Dias L., and Mousseau V. Inferring ELECTRE's veto-related parameters from outranking examples. European Journal of Operational Research 170 (2006) 172-191
22. Diaz S., Garcia-Lapresta J.-L., and Montes S. Consistent models of transitivity for reciprocal preferences on a finite ordinal scale. Information Sciences 178 13 (2008) 2832-2848
23. Doignon J.-P., Monjardet B., Roubens M., and Vincke Ph. Biorder families, valued relations and preference modelling. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 30 (1986) 435-480
24. Doumpos M., and Zopounidis C. A multicriteria classification approach based on pairwise comparisons. European Journal of Operational Research 158 (2004) 378-389
25. Fishburn P. Utility Theory for Decision Making (1970), Wiley
26. Fishburn P. Nontransitive preferences in decision theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4 (1991) 113-134
27. Fisher, L., 2008. Rock, Paper, Scissors: Game Theory in Everyday Life. Basic Books.
28. Fono L., and Andjiga N. Utility function of fuzzy preferences on a countable set under max-*-transitivity. Social Choice and Welfare 28 (2007) 667-683
29. Frean, M., 2006. Emergence of cyclic competitions in spatial ecosystems. In: Whigham, P.A. (Ed.), SIRC 2006: Interactions and Spatial Process (Eighteenth Colloquium hosted by the Spatial Information Research Centre), pp. 1-9.
30. Frean M., and Abraham E. Rock-scissors-paper and the survival of the weakest. Proceedings of the Royal Society (London), Series B 268 (2001) 1323-1328
31. Freund Y., Yier R., Schapire R., and Singer Y. An efficient boosting algorithm for combining preferences. Journal of Machine Learning Research 4 (2003) 933-969
32. Garcia-Lapresta J., and Mesenes C. Individual-valued preferences and their aggregation: Consistency analysis in a real case. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 151 (2005) 269-284
33. Herbrich R., Graepel T., and Obermayer K. Large margin rank boundaries for ordinal regression. In: Smola A., Bartlett P., Schölkopf B., and Schuurmans D. (Eds). Advances in Large Margin Classifiers (2000), MIT Press 115-132
34. Herbrich R., Minka T., and Graepel T. Trueskill: A bayesian skill rating system. In: Schölkopf B., Platt J., and Hoffman T. (Eds). Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems vol. 19 (2007), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 569-576
35. Hüllermeier, E., Fürnkranz, J., 2003. Pairwise preference learning and ranking. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 145-156.
36. Hüllermeier E., Fürnkranz J., Cheng W., and Brinker K. Label ranking by learning pairwise preferences. Artificial Intelligence 172 (2008) 1897-1916
37. Joachims T. Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In: Hand D., Keim D., and Ng R. (Eds). Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD'02) (2002), ACM Press 133-142
38. Kalish S., and Nelson P. A comparison of ranking, rating and reservation price measurement in conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters 2 4 (1991) 327-335
39. Károlyi G., Neufeld Z., and Scheuring I. Rock-scissors-paper game in a chaotic flow: The effect of dispersion on the cyclic competition of microorganisms. Journal of Theoretical Biology 236 1 (2005) 12-20
40. Kashima H., Oyama S., Yamanishi Y., and Tsuda K. On pairwise kernels: An efficient alternative and generalization analysis. In: Theeramunkong T., Kijsirikul B., Cercone N., and Ho T.B. (Eds). PAKDD. Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 5476 (2009), Springer 1030-1037
41. Kerr B., Riley M., Feldman M., and Bohannan B. Local dispersal promotes biodiversity in a real-life game of rock-paper-scissors. Nature 418 (2002) 171-174
42. Kirkup B., and Riley M. Antibiotic-mediated antagonism leads to a bacterial game of rock-paper-scissors in vivo. Nature 428 (2004) 412-414
43. Le, Q., Smola, A., Grtner, T., 2006. Simpler knowledge-based support vector machines. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine learning, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, pp. 521-528.
44. Luce R., and Suppes P. Preference, utility and subjective probability. In: Luce R., Bush R., and Galanter E. (Eds). Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (1965), Wiley 249-410
45. Makowski M., and Piotrowski E. Quantum cat's dilemma: An example of intransitivity in quantum games. Physics Letters A 355 (2006) 250-254
46. Mousseau V., Figueira J., and Naux J. Using assignment examples to infer weights for ELECTRE TRI method: Some experimental results. European Journal of Operational Research 130 2 (2001) 263-275
47. Nowak M. Biodiversity: Bacterial game dynamics. Nature 418 (2002) 138-139
48. Öztürk M., Tsoukiàs A., and Vincke Ph. Preference modelling. In: Figueira J., Greco S., and Ehrgott M. (Eds). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. State of the Art Surveys (2005), Springer, Verlag 27-71
49. Pahikkala, T., Tsivtsivadze, E., Airola, A., Boberg, J., Salakoski, T., 2007. Learning to rank with pairwise regularized least-squares. In: Joachims, Thorsten, Li, Hang, Liu, Tie-Yan, Zhai, ChengXiang (Eds.), SIGIR 2007 Workshop on Learning to Rank for Information Retrieval, pp. 27-33.
50. Pahikkala T., Pyysalo S., Boberg J., Järvinen J., and Salakoski T. Matrix representations, linear transformations, and kernels for disambiguation in natural language. Machine Learning 74 2 (2009) 133-158
51. Pahikkala T., Tsivtsivadze E., Airola A., Järvinen J., and Boberg J. An efficient algorithm for learning to rank from preference graphs. Machine Learning 75 1 (2009) 129-165
52. 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.
53. Reichenbach T., Mobilia M., and Frey E. Mobility promotes and jeopardizes biodiversity in rock-paper-scissors games. Nature 448 (2007) 1046-1049
54. Rifkin, R., 2002. Everything Old Is New Again: A Fresh Look at Historical Approaches in Machine Learning. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
55. Schölkopf B., and Smola A. Learning with Kernels, Support Vector Machines, Regularisation, Optimization and Beyond (2002), The MIT Press
56. Shawe-Taylor J., and Cristianini N. Kernel Methods for Pattern Analysis (2004), Cambridge University Press
57. Sinervo S., and Lively C. The rock-paper-scissors game and the evolution of alternative male strategies. Nature 340 (1996) 240-246
58. Suykens J., Van Gestel T., De Brabanter J., De Moor B., and Vandewalle J. Least Squares Support Vector Machines (2002), World Scientific Publication Co., Singapore
59. Switalski Z. Transitivity of fuzzy preference relations - an empirical study. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 118 (2000) 503-508
60. Switalski Z. General transitivity conditions for fuzzy reciprocal preference matrices. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 137 (2003) 85-100
61. Thurstone L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review 79 (1927) 281-299
62. Tsai R.-C., and Böckenholt U. Modelling intransitive preferences: A random-effects approach. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 50 (2006) 1-14
63. Tversky A. Preference, Belief and Similarity (1998), MIT Press
64. Waegeman, W., De Baets, B., submitted for publication. On the ERA ranking representability of multi-class classifiers. Artificial Intelligence.
65. Waegeman W., De Baets B., and Boullart L. Kernel-based learning methods for preference aggregation. 4OR 7 (2009) 169-189
66. Waite T. Intransitive preferences in hoarding gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis). Journal of Behavioural Ecology and Sociabiology 50 (2001) 116-121
67. Weston J., Schölkopf B., and Bousquet O. Joint kernel maps. In: Cabestany J., Prieto A., and Sandoval Hernández F. (Eds). Computational Intelligence and Bioinspired Systems, Eighth International Work - Conference on Artificial Neural Networks (IWANN 2005). Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 3512 (2005), Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany 176-191
68. Zhang J. Binary choice, subset choice, random utility, and ranking: A unified perspective using the permutahedron. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 48 (2004) 107-134