Skip to main content

Learning utility functions from preference relations on graphs

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Operations Research Proceedings 2011

Part of the book series: Operations Research Proceedings ((ORP))

  • 2699 Accesses

Abstract

The increasing popularity of graphs as fundamental data structures, due to their inherent flexibility in modeling information and its structure, has led to the development of methods to efficiently store, search and query graphs. Graphs are nonetheless complex entities whose analysis is cognitively challenging. This calls for the development of decision support systems that build upon a measure of ‘usefulness’ of graphs. We address this problem by introducing and defining the concept of ‘graph utility’. As the direct specification of utility functions is itself a difficult problem, we explore the problem of learning utility functions for graphs on the basis of user preferences that are extracted from pairwise graph comparisons.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bous, G., Fortemps, Ph., Glineur, F., Pirlot,M.: ACUTA: A novel method for eliciting additive value functions on the basis of holistic preference statements. EJOR 206, 435–444 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fishburn, P.C.: Utility Theory for Decision Making. Wiley, New York (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Greco, S.,Mousseau, V., Słowi´nski, R.: Ordinal regression revisited: multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions. EJOR 191, 415–435 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Huard, P.: Resolution of mathematical programming with nonlinear constraints by the method of centers. In: Abadie, J. (ed.) Nonlinear Programming, pp. 209–219.Wiley, New York (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jacquet-Lagr`eze, E., Siskos, Y.: Assessing a set of additive utility functions to multicriteria decision-making: the UTA method. EJOR 10, 151–164 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Nesterov, Y.E., Nemirovskii, A.S.: Interior-point Polynomial Algorithms in Convex Programming. SIAM, Philadelphia (1994)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Siskos, Y., Grigoroudis, E., Matsatsinis, N.: UTA Methods. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pp. 297–334. Springer, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sonnevend, G.: An analytical centre for polyhedrons and new classes of global algorithms for linear (smooth, convex) programming. In: Prekopa, A., Szelezsan, J., Strazicky, B. (eds.) LNCIS, pp. 866–876. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ye, Y.: Interior Point Algorithms: Theory and Analysis. Wiley, New York (1997)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Géraldine Bous .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Bous, G. (2012). Learning utility functions from preference relations on graphs. In: Klatte, D., Lüthi, HJ., Schmedders, K. (eds) Operations Research Proceedings 2011. Operations Research Proceedings. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29210-1_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics