Tradeoff Generation Using Soft Constraints

  • Stefano Bistarelli
  • Jerome Kelleher
  • Barry O’Sullivan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3010)

Abstract

Tradeoffs have been proposed in the literature as an approach to resolving over-constrainedness in interactive constraint-based tools, such as product configurators. It has been reported how tradeoffs can be modeled as additional constraints. This paper presents a formal framework for tradeoff generation based on the semiring approach to soft constraints. In particular, user preferences and tradeoffs are, respectively, represented as soft constraints and as an entailment operator. The entailment operator is used to interactively generate new constraints representing tradeoffs. The framework we present is well-motivated by real-world approaches that exploit tradeoff generation in online buying and configuration processes.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amilhastre, J., Fargier, H., Marguis, P.: Consistency restoration and explanations in dynamic CSPs – application to configuration. Artificial Intelligence 135, 199–234 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bahler, D., Dupont, C., Bowen, J.: Mixed quantitative/qualitative method for evaluating compromise solutions to conflict in collaborative design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 9, 325–336 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bistarelli, S., Fargier, H., Montanari, U., Rossi, F., Schiex, T., Verfaillie, G.: Semiring-based CSPs and Valued CSPs: Frameworks, properties, and comparison. CONSTRAINTS: An international journal. Kluwer 4(3) (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Constraint Solving over Semirings. In: Proc. IJCAI 1995, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Semiring-based Constraint Solving and Optimization. Journal of the ACM 44(2), 201–236 (1997)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Semiring-based Constraint Logic Programming: Syntax and Semantics. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and System (TOPLAS) 23, 1–29 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Soft concurrent constraint programming. In: Le Métayer, D. (ed.) ESOP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2305, pp. 53–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bistarelli, S., O’Sullivan, B.: A theoretical framework for tradeoff generation using soft constraints. In: Proceedings of AI 2003, pp. 69–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C.: Tcp-nets for preference-based product configuration. In: Proceedings of the Forth Workshop on Configuration ( ECAI 2002), July 2002, pp. 101–106 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Descotte, Y., Latombe, J.-C.: Making compromises among antagonist constraints in a planner. Artificial Intelligence 27, 183–217 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faltings, B., Pu, P., Torrens, M., Viappiani, P.: Designing example-critiquing interaction. In: International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Felfernig, A., Friedrich, G., Jannach, D., Stumpter, M.: Consistency-based diagnosis of configuration knowledge-bases. In: Proceedings of the 14h European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2000), pp. 146–150 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Freuder, E.C., O’Sullivan, B.: Generating tradeoffs for interactive constraintbased configuration. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) CP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2239, pp. 590–594. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Freuder, E.C., Likitvivatanavong, C., Moretti, M., Rossi, F., Wallace, R.J.: Computing explanations and implications in preference-based configurators. In: O’Sullivan, B. (ed.) CologNet 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2627, pp. 76–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frühwirth, T.: Constraint handling rules. In: Podelski, A. (ed.) Constraint Programming: Basics and Trends. LNCS, vol. 910, pp. 90–107. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keeney, R.L., Raifa, H.: Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences & Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pu, P., Faltings, B., Kumar, P.: User-involved tradeoff nalysis in configuration tasks. In: Proceedings of the Third CP Workshop on User-Interaction in Constraint Satisfaction, September 2003, pp. 85–102 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reddy, S.Y., Fertig, K.W., Smith, D.E.: Constraint management methodology for conceptual design tradeoff studies. In: Proceedings of the 1996 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers in Engineering Conference, Irvine, California (August 1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sabin, D., Weigel, R.: Product configuration frameworks – a survey. IEEE Intelligent Systems and their applications 13(4), 42–49 (1998); Special Issue on ConfigurationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saraswat, V.A.: Concurrent Constraint Programming. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Bistarelli
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jerome Kelleher
    • 3
  • Barry O’Sullivan
    • 3
  1. 1.Istituto di Informatica e TelematicaCNRPisaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di ScienzeUniversitá degli Studi “G. D’annunzio” di Chieti-PescaraItaly
  3. 3.Cork Constraint Computation Centre, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College CorkIreland

Personalised recommendations