Advertisement

CP-Nets, \(\pi \)-pref Nets, and Pareto Dominance

  • Nic WilsonEmail author
  • Didier Dubois
  • Henri Prade
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11940)

Abstract

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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Ben Amor, N., Dubois, D., Gouider, H., Prade, H.: Possibilistic preference networks. Inf. Sci. 460–461, 401–415 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 3.
    Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Garcia, L., Prade, H.: On the transformation between possibilistic logic bases and possibilistic causal networks. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 29(2), 135–173 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. 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
  6. 6.
    Boutilier, C., Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H.H., Poole, D.: CP-nets: a tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 21, 135–191 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 8.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibility Theory: An Approach to ComputerizedProcessing of Uncertainty. Plenum Press (1988)Google Scholar
  9. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Insight Centre for Data Analytics, School of Computer Science and ITUniversity College CorkCorkIreland
  2. 2.IRIT-CNRS Université Paul SabatierToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations