Electronic Commerce Research

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 543–569 | Cite as

A novel approach to exploring maximum consensus graphs from users’ preference data in a new age environment



Many methods have been used to produce coherent aggregated results from individual’s preference data, such as decision-making support systems, group recommendation systems, and so on. This study proposes a new framework where a graph model is used to represent user preferences and develops a new algorithm for detecting the maximum consensus and majority user group. The maximum consensus graph can be used to illustrate the preferences of the majority of the users. Similarly, discovering the segment of users who belong to the majority is useful information for the decision maker in order to produce consensus opinions and for market mangers to propose the most feasible strategies. In this study we initiate a new approach to the group ranking problem. Experiments using synthetic and real datasets show the model’s computational efficiency, scalability, and effectiveness.


Data mining Decision making Group decision making Maximum consensus sequence Graph mining 



The authors are very grateful to the anonymous referees for their helpful comments and valuable suggestions for improving the earlier version of the paper. This research was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C. under the Grant NSC 100-2410-H-031-010-MY2 and NSC 102-2410-H-031-058-MY3. We appreciate Tsai Hsieh Che to assistant program of this study.


  1. 1.
    Hogg, T. (2010). Inferring preference correlations from social networks. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(1), 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li, Y.-M., Lin, C.-H., & Lai, C.-Y. (2010). Identifying influential reviewers for word-of-mouth marketing. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(4), 294–304.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Xu, K., Guo, X., Li, J., Lau, R. Y., & Liao, S. S. (2012). Discovering target groups in social networking sites: An effective method for maximizing joint influential power. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11(4), 318–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cook, W. D., Golany, B., Kress, M., Penn, M., & Raviv, T. (2005). Optimal allocation of proposals to reviewers to facilitate effective ranking. Management Science, 51(4), 655–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fernandez, E., & Olmedo, R. (2005). An agent model based on ideas of concordance and discordance for group ranking problems. Decision Support Systems, 39(3), 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campanella, G., & Ribeiro, R. A. (2011). A framework for dynamic multiple-criteria decision making. Decision Support Systems, 52(1), 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chakhar, S., & Saad, I. (2012). Dominance-based rough set approach for groups in multicriteria classification problems. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 372–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu, Z., & Xu, J. (2012). A consistency and consensus based decision support model for group decision making with multiplicative preference relations. Decision Support Systems, 52(3), 757–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mousavi, S. M., Jolai, F., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., & Vahdani, B. (2013). A fuzzy grey model based on the compromise ranking for multi-criteria group decision making problems in manufacturing systems. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 24(4), 819–827.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, Y.-L., & Cheng, L.-C. (2008). A novel collaborative filtering approach for recommending ranked items. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(4), 2396–2405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rad, A., Naderi, B., & Soltani, M. (2011). Clustering and ranking university majors using data mining and AHP algorithms: A case study in Iran. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(1), 755–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fagin, R., Kumar, R., & Sivakumar, D. (2003). Efficient similarity search and classification via rank aggregation. In Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD iIternational Conference on Management of Data (pp. 301–312). Bridgeton: ACM.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang, T. C.-K. (2013). A novel group ranking model for revealing sequence and quantity knowledge. European Journal of Operational Research, 231(3), 654–666.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beg, M. S., & Ahmad, N. (2003). Soft computing techniques for rank aggregation on the world wide web. World Wide Web, 6(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen, Y.-L., & Cheng, L.-C. (2009). Mining maximum consensus sequences from group ranking data. European Journal of Operational Research, 198(1), 241–251.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen, Y.-L., & Cheng, L.-C. (2010). An approach to group ranking decisions in a dynamic environment. Decision Support Systems, 48(4), 622–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kemeny, J. G., & Snell, L. (1962). Preference ranking: an axiomatic approach. Mathematical models in the social sciences, 2, 9–23.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen, W. W., Schapire, R. E., & Singer, Y. (1999). Learning to order things. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 10(1), 243–270.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saaty, T. L. (1987). Rank generation, preservation, and reversal in the analytic hierarchy decision process. Decision Sciences, 18(2), 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bogart, K. P. (1975). Preference structures. II: distances between asymmetric relations. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 29(2), 254–262.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hochbaum, D. S., & Levin, A. (2006). Methodologies and algorithms for group-rankings decision. Management Science, 52(9), 1394–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang, B., Liang, J., & Qian, Y. (2014). Determining decision makers’ weights in group ranking: a granular computing method. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 6(3), 511–521.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Damart, S., Dias, L. C., & Mousseau, V. (2007). Supporting groups in sorting decisions: Methodology and use of a multi-criteria aggregation/disaggregation DSS. Decision Support Systems, 43(4), 1464–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    González-Pachón, J., & Romero, C. (2001). Aggregation of partial ordinal rankings: an interval goal programming approach. Computers & Operations Research, 28(8), 827–834.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saint, S., & Lawson, J. R. (1994). Rules for reaching consensus: A modern approach to decision making. Amsterdam: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Han, J., Kamber, M., & Pei, J. (2011). Data mining: concepts and techniques. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huan, J., Wang, W., & Prins, J. Efficient mining of frequent subgraphs in the presence of isomorphism. In Data Mining, 2003. ICDM 2003. Third IEEE International Conference on, 2003 (pp. 549–552). IEEE.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gudes, E., Shimony, S. E., & Vanetik, N. (2006). Discovering frequent graph patterns using disjoint paths. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 18(11), 1441–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kang, U., Tsourakakis, C. E., & Faloutsos, C. Pegasus: A peta-scale graph mining system implementation and observations. In Data Mining, 2009. ICDM’09. Ninth IEEE International Conference on, 2009 (pp. 229–238). IEEE.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Inokuchi, A., Washio, T., & Motoda, H. (2000). An apriori-based algorithm for mining frequent substructures from graph data. In PKDD’00: Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (pp. 13–23). Springer.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kuramochi, M., & Karypis, G. (2004). An efficient algorithm for discovering frequent subgraphs. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 16(9), 1038–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vanetik, N., Gudes, E., & Shimony, S. E. (2002). Computing frequent graph patterns from semistructured data. In Data Mining, 2002. ICDM 2003. Proceedings. 2002 IEEE International Conference on, 2002 (pp. 458–465). IEEE.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kuramochi, M., & Karypis, G. (2001). Frequent subgraph discovery. In Data Mining, 2001. ICDM 2001, Proceedings IEEE International Conference on, 2001 (pp. 313–320). IEEE.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tong, H., Faloutsos, C., & Koren, Y. (2007). Fast direction-aware proximity for graph mining. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 747–756). Bridgeton: ACM.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cheng, L.-C., & Jhang, M.-J. (2012). Applied graph mining technique to discover consensus graphs from group ranking decisions. In Proceedings on the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ICAI) (p. 1). The Steering Committee of The World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Applied Computing (WorldComp).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information ManagementSoochow UniversityTaipeiTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations