Skip to main content

Case-Based Ranking for Decision Support Systems

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2689))

Abstract

Very often a planning problem can be formulated as a ranking problem: i.e. to find an order relation over a set of alternatives. The ranking of a finite set of alternatives can be designed as a preference elicitation problem. While the casebased preference elicitation approach is more effective with respect to the first principle methods, still the scaling problem remains an open issue because the elicitation effort has a quadratic relation with the number of alternative cases. In this paper we propose a solution based on the machine learning techniques. We illustrate how a boosting algorithm can effectively estimate pairwise preferences and reduce the effort of the elicitation process. Experimental results, both on artificial data and a realworld problem in the domain of civil defence, showed that a good trade-off can be achieved between the accuracy of the estimated preferences, and the elicitation effort of the end user.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. A. Aamodt and E. Plaza. Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, adn system approaches. AI Communications, 7(1):39–59, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. E. Beinat and P. Nijkamp. Multicriteria Evaluation in Land-Use Management: Methodologies and Case Studies. Kluwer, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jim Blythe. Visual Exploration and Incremental Utitlity Elicitation. In Proceedings of AAAI/IAAI 2002, pages 526–532, Edmonton, Alberta, CA, July 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  4. K. Bradley and B. Smyth. Personalized information ordering:A case study in online recruitment. In Proceedings of the Twenty-second SGAI International Conference on Knowledge Based Systems and Applied Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, UK, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  5. B. Caprile, C. Furlanello, and S. Merler. Highlighting hard patterns via Adaboost weights evolution. In J. Kittler and F. Roli, editors, Multiple Classifier Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2364, pages 72–80. Springer, 2002.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. A. Carrara. Potentials and pitfalls of gis technology in assessing natural hazards. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 16:427–445, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. William W. Cohen, Robert E. Schapire, and Yoram Singer. Learning to Order Things. In Michael I. Jordan, Michael J. Kearns, and Sara A. Solla, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 10. The MIT Press, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  8. B.A. Davey and H.A. Priestley. Introduction to lattices and order. Cambridge University Press, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  9. G. Devetag and M. Warglien. Representing others’ preferences in mixed motive games: Was schelling right? to appear, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Y. Freund, R. Iyer, R. Schapire, and Y. Singer. An Efficient Boosting Algorithm for Combining Preferences. In Proceedings 15th International Conference on Machine Learning, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Y. Freund and R. Schapire. A Short Introduction to Boosting, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Vu Ha and Peter Haddawy. Toward case-based preference elicitation: Similarity measures on preference structures. In Gregory F. Cooper and Serafín Moral, editors, Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-98), pages 193–201, San Francisco, July 24–26 1998. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  13. McGinty L. and Smyth B. Comparison-based recommendation. In Springer, editor, Proceedings of the European Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, Aberdeen, Scotland, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  14. G. Linden, S. Hanks, and N. Lesh. Interactive assessment of user preference models. In User Modeling, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Thomas L. Saaty. Fundamentals of the analytic network process. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Analytical Hierarchy Process, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Thomas L. Saaty and Luis G. Vargas. Decision Making in Economic, Political, Social and Technological Environments With the Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Thomas L. Saaty and Luis G. Vargas. Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Kluwer Academic, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  18. J. von Neumann and O. Morgestern. Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton University Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Avesani, P., Ferrari, S., Susi, A. (2003). Case-Based Ranking for Decision Support Systems. In: Ashley, K.D., Bridge, D.G. (eds) Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development. ICCBR 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2689. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45006-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45006-8_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-40433-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45006-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics