Advertisement

Theory and Decision

, Volume 82, Issue 2, pp 151–183 | Cite as

Explaining robust additive utility models by sequences of preference swaps

  • K. Belahcene
  • C. Labreuche
  • N. Maudet
  • V. Mousseau
  • W. Ouerdane
Article

Abstract

As decision-aiding tools become more popular everyday—but at the same time more sophisticated—it is of utmost importance to develop their explanatory capabilities. Some decisions require careful explanations, which can be challenging to provide when the underlying mathematical model is complex. This is the case when recommendations are based on incomplete expression of preferences, as the decision-aiding tool has to infer despite this scarcity of information. This step is key in the process but hardly intelligible for the user. The robust additive utility model is a necessary preference relation which makes minimal assumptions, at the price of handling a collection of compatible utility functions, virtually impossible to exhibit to the user. This strength for the model is a challenge for the explanation. In this paper, we come up with an explanation engine based on sequences of preference swaps, that is, pairwise comparison of alternatives. The intuition is to confront the decision maker with “elementary” comparisons, thus building incremental explanations. Elementary here means that alternatives compared may only differ on two criteria. Technically, our explanation engine exploits some properties of the necessary preference relation that we unveil in the paper. Equipped with this, we explore the issues of the existence and length of the resulting sequences. We show in particular that in the general case, no bound can be given on the length of explanations, but that in binary domains, the sequences remain short.

Keywords

Multicriteria decision making Explanation Necessary preference relation 

Supplementary material

References

  1. Aingworth, D., Chekuri, C., & Motwani, R. 1996. Fast estimation of diameter and shortest paths (without matrix multiplication). In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA ’96, pp. 547–553Google Scholar
  2. Bana e Costa, C. A., & Vansnick, J.C. (1995). General overview of the MACBETH approach. In Pardalos P. M., Siskos Y., & Zopounidis C., (Eds.) Advances in Multicriteria Analysis, pages 93–100. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  3. Bana e Costa, C. A., Lourenço J. C., Chagas, M. P. & Bana e Costa, J. C. (2008). Development of reusable bid evaluation models for the portuguese electric transmission company. Decision Analysis, 5(1):22–42Google Scholar
  4. Boutilier, C., Brafman, R. I., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H. H., & Poole, D. (2004). Cp-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR), 21, 135–191.Google Scholar
  5. Brafman, R. I., Domshlak, C., & Shimony, S. E. (2006). On graphical modeling of preference and importance. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR), 25, 389–424.Google Scholar
  6. Carenini, G., & Moore, J. D. (2006). Generating and evaluating evaluative arguments. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 170, 925–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ch. Labreuche, Maudet N., & Ouerdane W. (2011). Minimal and complete explanations for critical multi-attribute decisions. In Algorithmic Decision Theory (ADT), pp. 121–134, Piscataway, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Ch. Labreuche, Maudet, N., & Ouerdane, W. (2012). Justifying dominating options when preferences are incomplete. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 242, pp 486–491, Montpellier, France, IOS PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Eiter, T., & Gottlob, G. (1995). The complexity of logic-based abduction. J. ACM, 42(1), 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Even, S., & Tarjan, R. E. (1975). Network flow and testing graph connectivity. SIAM J. Comput., 4(4), 507–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fishburn, P.C. (1997). Cancellation conditions for multiattribute preferences on finite sets. In Mark, H. Karwan, J. S., & Jyrki W. (Eds.) Essays In Decision Making, pp. 157–167. Springer Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedrich, G., & Zanker, M. (2011). A taxonomy for generating explanations in recommender systems. AI Magazine, 32(3), 90–98.Google Scholar
  13. Greco, S., Słowinski, R., Figueira, J., & Mousseau, V. (2010). Robust ordinal regression. In Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, pp 241–284. Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  14. Greco, S., Mousseau, V., & Słowinski, R. (2008). Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking with a set of additive value functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 191, 416–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammond, J., Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1998). Even Swaps: a rational method for making trade-offs. Harvard Business Review, 137–149Google Scholar
  16. Herlocker, J. L., Konstan, J. A., & Riedl, J.(2000). Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 241–250Google Scholar
  17. Jacquet-Lagrèze, E., & Siskos, Y. (1982). Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision making: the UTA method. European Journal of Operational Research, 10, 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kazman, R., Klein, M., & Clements, P. (2000). ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation. TECHNICAL REPORT, CMU/SEI-2000-TR-004, http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/00tr004.pdfGoogle Scholar
  19. Klein, D. A. (1994). Decision analytic intelligent systems: automated explanation and knowledge acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement, volume 1: Additive and Polynomial Representations. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Labreuche, Ch. (2011). A general framework for explaining the results of a multi-attribute preference model. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 175, 1410–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Michell, Joel. (1988). Some problems in testing the double cancellation condition in conjoint measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 32(4), 466–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nic, W. (2011). Computational techniques for a simple theory of conditional preferences. Artificial Intelligence, 175(7–8):1053–1091. Representing, Processing, and Learning Preferences: Theoretical and Practical Challenges.Google Scholar
  24. Nunes, I., Miles, S., Luck, M., Barbosa, S., & Lucena, C. (2014) Pattern-based explanation for automated decisions. In Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Artificial intelligence, pp. 669–674. IOS PressGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Sullivan, B., Papadopoulos, A., Faltings, B., & Pu, P. (2007). Representative explanations for over-constrained problems. In Proceedings of the 22nd national conference on Artificial intelligence, pp. 323–328. AAAI PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Pu, P., & Chen, L. (2007). Trust-inspiring explanation interfaces for recommender systems. Knowledge-Based Systems, 20(6):542 – 556. Special Issue On Intelligent User Interfaces.Google Scholar
  27. Spliet, R., & Tervonen, T. (2014). Preference inference with general additive value models and holistic pair-wise statements. European Journal of Operational Research, 232(3), 607–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Symeonidis, P., Nanopoulos, A., & Manolopoulos, Y. (2009). MoviExplain: a recommender system with explanations. In Proceedings of the third ACM conference on Recommender systems (RecSys’09), pp. 317–320, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM.Google Scholar
  29. Ulrich, J. (2004) Quickxplain: Preferred explanations and relaxations for over-constrained problems. In Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 167–172, Menlo Park, California, 2004. AAAI Press /The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Belahcene
    • 1
  • C. Labreuche
    • 2
  • N. Maudet
    • 3
  • V. Mousseau
    • 1
  • W. Ouerdane
    • 1
  1. 1.LGI, CentraleSupélec, Université Paris-SaclayChatenay MalabryFrance
  2. 2.Thales Research & TechnologyPalaiseau CedexFrance
  3. 3.Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, CNRSParisFrance

Personalised recommendations