<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Learning to Rank based on Analogical Reasoning</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Mohsen Ahmadi Fahandar</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Eyke Hullermeier</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Intelligent Systems Group Paderborn University</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2017</year>
      </pub-date>
      <abstract>
        <p>Preference learning is a branch of machine learning dealing with the induction of preference models from observed preference information [2]. An important problem in the realm of preference learning is \learning to rank" in the setting of object ranking : On the basis of training data in the form of a set of rankings of objects (choice alternatives) represented as feature vectors, the goal is to learn a ranking function that predicts a linear order of any new set of objects [1]. In this paper, we propose a new approach to object ranking based on principles of analogical reasoning. More speci cally, our basic line of reasoning is formalized in terms of so-called analogical proportions [3], and can be summarized by the following inference pattern:</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>A</p>
      <p>B; A : B :: C : D</p>
      <p>C D
Given four objects A; B; C; D, if object A is known to be preferred to B, and C
relates to D as A relates to B, then C is (supposedly) preferred to D.</p>
      <p>Our learning method consists of two main building blocks: pairwise comparison
and rank aggregation. Assuming training data in the form of pairwise preferences
(longer rankings are broken into such pairs beforehand), and given a new set
Q of query objects for which a ranking is sought, a weighted preference (which
can be interpreted as a probability) is estimated for each pair C; D 2 Q. To this
end, the number of preferences A B and B A are counted in the training
data, where A and B are in analogical proportion to C and D. In a second step,
the (weighted) pairwise preferences are combined into an overall ranking. This is
accomplished by means of suitable methods for rank aggregation.</p>
      <p>Our rst experimental results are promising. On data sets from various
domains (sports, education, tourism, etc.), our approach turns out to be highly
competitive to state-of-the-art methods for object ranking. Speci cally strong
performance is observed in situations where prediction requires a kind of
knowledge transfer (for example, predicting a ranking of hotels in one city based on
preferences for another city). The principle of analogical reasoning appears to be
especially appropriate for this type of problems.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>W.W.</given-names>
            <surname>Cohen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.E.</given-names>
            <surname>Schapire</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
            <surname>Singer</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Learning to Order Things.
          <source>J. Art. Intell. Res.</source>
          ,
          <volume>10</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ):
          <volume>243</volume>
          {
          <fpage>270</fpage>
          ,
          <year>1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2. J. Furnkranz and E. Hullermeier.
          <source>Preference Learning</source>
          . Springer-Verlag,
          <year>2011</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Miclet</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Bayoudh</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Delha</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Analogical dissimilarity: de nition, algorithms and two experiments in machine learning</article-title>
          .
          <source>J. Art. Intell. Res.</source>
          ,
          <volume>32</volume>
          :
          <fpage>793</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>824</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2008</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>