Journal of Heuristics

, Volume 12, Issue 4–5, pp 263–285 | Cite as

Hard and soft constraints for reasoning about qualitative conditional preferences

  • C. Domshlak
  • S. Prestwich
  • F. Rossi
  • K. B. Venable
  • T. Walsh

Abstract

Many real life optimization problems are defined in terms of both hard and soft constraints, and qualitative conditional preferences. However, there is as yet no single framework for combined reasoning about these three kinds of information. In this paper we study how to exploit classical and soft constraint solvers for handling qualitative preference statements such as those captured by the CP-nets model. In particular, we show how hard constraints are sufficient to model the optimal outcomes of a possibly cyclic CP-net, and how soft constraints can faithfully approximate the semantics of acyclic conditional preference statements whilst improving the computational efficiency of reasoning about these statements.

Keywords

Preferences Hard and Soft Constraints CP-nets 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bistarelli, S., H. Fargier, U. Montanari, F. Rossi, T. Schiex, and G. Verfaillie. (1996). “Semiring-Based CSPs and Valued CSPs: Basic Properties and Comparison.” In Over-Constrained Systems.Google Scholar
  2. Bistarelli, S., U. Montanari, and F. Rossi. (1997). “Semiring-Based Constraint Solving and Optimization.” Journal of the ACM 44(2), 201–236.CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Boutilier, C., R. Brafman, H. Hoos, and D. Poole. (1999). “Reasoning with Conditional Ceteris Paribus Preference Statements.” In Proc. of UAI, pp.71–80.Google Scholar
  4. Boutilier, C., F. Bacchus, and R.I. Brafman. (2001). “UCP-Networks: A Directed Graphical Representation of Conditional Utilities.” In Proc. of UAI, pp.56–64.Google Scholar
  5. Boutilier, C., R. Brafman, C. Domshlak, H. Hoos, and D. Poole. (2004). “CP-nets: A Tool for Representing and Reasoning about Conditional. ceteris paribus preference statements.” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 21, 135–191.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Boutilier, C., R. Brafman, C. Domshlak, H. Hoos, and D. Poole. (2004). “Preference-Based Constraint Optimization with CP-Nets.” Computational Intelligence 20(2), 137–157.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Brafman, R. and Y. Dimopoulos. (2004). “Extended Semantics and Optimization Algorithms for CP-Networks.” Computational Intelligence 20(2), 218–245.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Domshlak, C. and R. Brafman. (2002). “CP-Nets–-Reasoning and Consistency Testing.” In Proc. of KR, pp.121–132.Google Scholar
  9. Domshlak, C., F. Rossi, K.B. Venable, and T. Walsh. (2003). “Reasoning About Soft Constraints and Conditional Preferences: Complexity Results and Approximation Techniques.” In Proc. of IJCAI, Acapulco, Mexico, August.Google Scholar
  10. Doyle, J. and R.H. Thomason. (1999). “Background to Qualitative Decision Theory.” AI Magazine 20(2), 55–68.Google Scholar
  11. Doyle, J. and M. Wellman. (1994). “Representing Preferences as Ceteris Paribus Comparatives.” In Proc. of AAAI Spring Symposium on Decision-Making Planning, pp.69–75.Google Scholar
  12. Dubois, D., H. Fargier, and H. Prade. (1993). “The Calculus of Fuzzy Restrictions as A Basis for Flexible Constraint Satisfaction.” In Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems.Google Scholar
  13. Fargier, H., J. Lang, and T. Schiex. (1993). “Selecting Preferred Solutions in Fuzzy Constraint Satisfaction Problems.” In Proc. of 1st European Congress on Fuzzy and Intelligent Technologies (EUFIT), pp.277–288.Google Scholar
  14. Freuder, E.C. and R.J. Wallace. (1992). “Partial Constraint Satisfaction.” Artificial Intelligence 58(1–3), 21–70.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Garey, M.R. and D.S. Johnson. (1978). Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman and Company, New-York.Google Scholar
  16. Goldsmith, J., J. Lang, M. Truszczynski, and N. Wilson. (2005). “The Computational Complexity of Dominance and Consistency in CP-Nets.” In Proc. of IJCAI.Google Scholar
  17. Hansson, S.O. (2001). “Preference Logic.” In D.M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 4, pp.319–394. Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. Lang, J. (2002). “From Preference Representation to Combinatorial Vote.” In Proc. of KR.Google Scholar
  19. McGeachie, M. and J. Doyle. (2002). “Efficient Utility Functions for Ceteris Paribus Preferences.” In Proc. of AAAI, pp. 279–284.Google Scholar
  20. Meseguer, P., F. Rossi, T. Schiex, and K.B. Venable. (2004). “Private Communication.” April.Google Scholar
  21. Prestwich, S., F. Rossi, K.B. Venable, and T. Walsh. (2005). “Constraint-Based Preferential Optimization.” In Proc. of AAAI, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 9–13, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  22. Sabin, D. and R. Weigel. (1998). “Product Configuration Frameworks–-A Survey.” IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications 13(4), 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schiex, T., H. Fargier, and G. Verfaille. (1995). “Valued Constraint Satisfaction Problems: Hard and Easy Problems.” In Proc. of IJCAI, pp. 631–637.Google Scholar
  24. Schiex, T. (1992). “Possibilistic Constraint Satisfaction Problems,” or “How to Handle Soft Constraints?.” In Proc. of UAI, pp. 269–275.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Domshlak
    • 1
  • S. Prestwich
    • 2
  • F. Rossi
    • 3
  • K. B. Venable
    • 3
  • T. Walsh
    • 4
  1. 1.William Davidson Faculty of Industrial Engineering and ManagementTechnion—Israel Institute of TechnologyTechnion City, HaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College CorkCorkIreland
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly
  4. 4.National ICT Australia and School of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations