CP-Nets, \(\pi \)-pref Nets, and Pareto Dominance
Two approaches have been proposed for the graphical handling of qualitative conditional preferences between solutions described in terms of a finite set of features: Conditional Preference networks (CP-nets for short) and more recently, Possibilistic Preference networks (\(\pi \)-pref nets for short). The latter agree with Pareto dominance, in the sense that if a solution violates a subset of preferences violated by another one, the former solution is preferred to the latter one. Although such an agreement might be considered as a basic requirement, it was only conjectured to hold as well for CP-nets. This non-trivial result is established in the paper. Moreover it has important consequences for showing that \(\pi \)-pref nets can at least approximately mimic CP-nets by adding explicit constraints between symbolic weights encoding the ceteris paribus preferences, in case of Boolean features. We further show that dominance with respect to the extended \(\pi \)-pref nets is polynomial.
This material is based upon works supported by the Science Foundation Ireland under Grants No. 12/RC/2289 and No. 12/RC/2289-P2 which are co-funded under the European Regional Development Fund.
- 2.Ben Amor, N., Dubois, D., Gouider, H., Prade, H.: Expressivity of possibilistic preference networks with constraints. In: Moral, S., Pivert, O., Sánchez, D., Marín, N. (eds.) SUM 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10564, pp. 163–177. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67582-4_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Boutilier, C., Bacchus, F., Brafman, R.I.: UCP-networks: a directed graphical representation of conditional utilities. In: Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Uncertainty in AI, Seattle, Washington, USA, pp. 56–64 (2001)Google Scholar
- 5.Boutilier, C., Brafman, R.I., Hoos, H.H., Poole, D.: Reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. In: Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Uncertainty in AI, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 71–80 (1999)Google Scholar
- 7.Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C., Kogan, T.: Compact value-function representations for qualitative preferences. In: Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Uncertainty in AI, Banff, Canada, pp. 51–59 (2004)Google Scholar
- 8.Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibility Theory: An Approach to ComputerizedProcessing of Uncertainty. Plenum Press (1988)Google Scholar
- 9.Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibility theory as a basis for preference propagation in automated reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, San Diego, CA, pp. 821–832 (1992)Google Scholar