Tasks
The main task in preference learning concerns problems in "Label ranking
In label ranking, the model has an instance space and a finite set of labels . The preference information is given in the form indicating instance shows preference in rather than . A set of preference information is used as training data in the model. The task of this model is to find a preference ranking among the labels for any instance. It was observed some conventionalInstance ranking
Instance ranking also has the instance space and label set . In this task, labels are defined to have a fixed order and each instance is associated with a label . Giving a set of instances as training data, the goal of this task is to find the ranking order for a new set of instances.Object ranking
Object ranking is similar to instance ranking except that no labels are associated with instances. Given a set of pairwise preference information in the form and the model should find out a ranking order among instances.Techniques
There are two practical representations of the preference information . One is assigning and with two real numbers and respectively such that . Another one is assigning a binary value for all pairs denoting whether or . Corresponding to these two different representations, there are two different techniques applied to the learning process.Utility function
If we can find a mapping from data to real numbers, ranking the data can be solved by ranking the real numbers. This mapping is calledPreference relations
The binary representation of preference information is called preference relation. For each pair of alternatives (instances or labels), a binary predicate can be learned by conventional supervising learning approach. Fürnkranz and Hüllermeier proposed this approach in label ranking problem. For object ranking, there is an early approach by Cohen et al. Using preference relations to predict the ranking will not be so intuitive. Since preference relation is not transitive, it implies that the solution of ranking satisfying those relations would sometimes be unreachable, or there could be more than one solution. A more common approach is to find a ranking solution which is maximally consistent with the preference relations. This approach is a natural extension of pairwise classification.Uses
Preference learning can be used in ranking search results according to feedback of user preference. Given a query and a set of documents, a learning model is used to find the ranking of documents corresponding to theSee also
*References
{{Reflist, refs= {{ cite journal , last = Shogren , first = Jason F. , author2=List, John A. , author3=Hayes, Dermot J. , year = 2000 , title = Preference Learning in Consecutive Experimental Auctions , url = http://econpapers.repec.org/article/oupajagec/v_3a82_3ay_3a2000_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a1016-1021.htm , journal = American Journal of Agricultural Economics , volume = 82 , issue = 4 , pages = 1016–1021 , doi=10.1111/0002-9092.00099 , s2cid = 151493631 {{ cite web , title = Preference learning workshops , url = http://www.preference-learning.org/#Workshops {{ cite book , last = Fürnkranz , first = Johannes , author2=Hüllermeier, Eyke , year = 2011 , title = Preference Learning , url = https://books.google.com/books?id=nc3XcH9XSgYC , chapter = Preference Learning: An Introduction , chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=nc3XcH9XSgYC&pg=PA4 , publisher = Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. , pages = 3–8 , isbn = 978-3-642-14124-9 {{ cite journal , last = Har-peled , author1-link = Sariel Har-Peled , first = Sariel , author2=Roth, Dan , author3=Zimak, Dav , year = 2003 , title = Constraint classification for multiclass classification and ranking , journal = In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS-02 , pages = 785–792 {{ cite journal , last = Fürnkranz , first = Johannes , author2=Hüllermeier, Eyke , year = 2003 , title = Pairwise Preference Learning and Ranking , journal = Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Machine Learning , pages = 145–156 {{ cite journal , last = Cohen , first = William W. , author2=Schapire, Robert E. , author3=Singer, Yoram , year = 1998 , title = Learning to order things , url = http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=302528.302736 , journal = In Proceedings of the 1997 Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages = 451–457 {{ cite journal , last = Liu , first = Tie-Yan , year = 2009 , title = Learning to Rank for Information Retrieval , url = http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1618303.1618304 , journal = Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval , volume = 3 , issue = 3 , pages = 225–331 , doi = 10.1561/1500000016 {{ cite journal , last = Gemmis , first = Marco De , author2=Iaquinta, Leo , author3=Lops, Pasquale , author4=Musto, Cataldo , author5=Narducci, Fedelucio , author6= Semeraro, Giovanni , year = 2009 , title = Preference Learning in Recommender Systems , url = http://www.ecmlpkdd2009.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/preference-learning.pdf#page=45 , journal = Preference Learning , volume = 41 , pages = 387–407 , doi=10.1007/978-3-642-14125-6_18 , isbn = 978-3-642-14124-9External links