Advertisement

A Snapshot on Reasoning with Qualitative Preference Statements in AI

  • Carmel Domshlak
Part of the CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 504)

Abstract

Preference elicitation is a well-known bottleneck in decision analysis and decision automation tasks, especially in applications targeting lay users that cannot be assisted by a professional decision analyst. Focusing on the ordinal preferences of the users, here we discuss the principles that appear to underly various frameworks developed in the AI research for interpretation and formal reasoning about sets of qualitative preference statements.

Keywords

Utility Function User Preference Preference Expression Preference Elicitation Dominance Testing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    F. Bacchus and A. Grove. Graphical models for preference and utility. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 3–10, San Francisco, CA, 1995. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, S. Kaci, and H. Prade. Bipolar possibility theory in preference modeling: Representation, fusion and optimal solutions. Information Fusion, 7:135–150, 2006.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    D. Bertsekas, A. Nedic, and A. Ozdaglar. Convex Analysis and Optimization. Athena Scientific, 2003.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    J. Blythe. Visual exploration and incremental utility elicitation. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 526–532, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    C. Boutilier. Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Knowledge Representation (KR-94), pages 75–86, Bonn, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    C. Boutilier, F. Bacchus, and R. I. Brafman. UCP-networks: A directed graphical representation of conditional utilities. In Proceedings of Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 56–64, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    C. Boutilier, R. Brafman, C. Domshlak, H. Hoos, and D. Poole. CP-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning about conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 21:135–191, 2004.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    R. Brafman and C. Domshlak. Database preference queries revisited. Technical Report TR2004-1934, Cornell University Computing and Information Science, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. Brafman and C. Domshlak. Graphically structured value-function compilation. Artificial Intelligence, 2008. in press.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Brafman, C. Domshlak, and T. Kogan. Compact value-function representations for qualitative preferences. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 51–58, Banff, Canada, 2004.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. I. Brafman and Y. Dimopoulos. Extended semantics and optimization algorithms for cp-networks. Computational Intelligence (Special Issue on Preferences in AI and CP), 20(2):218–245, 2004.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    G. Brewka. Logic programming with ordered disjunction. In Proceedings of Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 100–105, Edmonton, Canada, 2002. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    U. Chajewska, L. Getoor, J. Norman, and Y. Shahar. Utility elicitation as a classification problem. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 79–88, San Francisco, CA, 1998. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. D’Ambrosio and W. Birmingham. Preference-directed design. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, 9:219–230, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    C. Domshlak and R. Brafman. CP-nets-reasoning and consistency testing. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 121–132, Toulouse, France, April 2002.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    C. Domshlak and T. Joachims. Unstructuring user preferences: Efficient non-parametric utility revelation. In Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    C. Domshlak and T. Joachims. Efficient and non-parametric reasoning over user preferences. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 17(1–2):41–69, 2007. Special issue on Statistical and Probabilistic Methods for User Modeling.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    C. Domshlak, S. Prestwich, F. Rossi, K. B. Venable, and T. Walsh. Hard and soft constraints for reasoning about qualitative conditional preferences. Journal of Heuristics, 12(4–5):263–285, 2006.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    C. Domshlak, F. Rossi, K. B. Venable, and T. Walsh. Reasoning about soft constraints and conditional preferences: Complexity results and approximation techniques. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 215–220, Acapulco, Mexico, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    J. Doyle. Prospects for preferences. Computational Intelligence (Special Issue on Preferences in AI), 20(2):111–136, 2004.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    J. Doyle and R. H. Thomason. Background to qualitative decision theory. AI Magazine, 20(2):55–68, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    J. Doyle and M. Wellman. Representing preferences as ceteris paribus comparatives. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Decision-Theoretic Planning, pages 69–75, March 1994.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    P. C. Fishburn. The Foundations of Expected Utility. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1982.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    J. Goldsmith, J. Lang, M. Truszczynski, and N. Wilson. The computational complexity of dominance and consistency in CP-nets. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 144–149, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2005.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    V. Ha and P. Haddawy. A hybrid approach to reasoning with partially elicited preference models. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Stockholm, Sweden, July 1999. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    P. Haddawy, V. Ha, A. Restificar, B. Geisler, and J. Miyamoto. Preference elicitation via theory refinement. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 4:317–337, 2003.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    S. O. Hansson. Preference logic. In D. M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 4, pages 319–394. Kluwer, 2 edition, 2001.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    S. O. Hansson. The Structure of Values and Norms. Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa. Decision with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley, 1976.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    G. Kimeldorf and G. Wahba. Some results on tchebycheffian spline functions. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 33:82–95, 1971.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    D. H. Krantz, R. D. Luce, P. Suppes, and A. Tversky. Foundations of Measurement. New York: Academic, 1971.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    P. La Mura and Y. Shoham. Expected utility networks. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 367–373, Stockholm, Sweden, 1999. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    J. Lang. Logical preference representation and combinatorial vote. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 42(1–3):37–71, 2004.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    G. Linden, S. Hanks, and N. Lesh. Interactive assessment of user preference models: The automated travel assistant. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on User Modeling, pages 67–78, 1997.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    R. D. Luce and H. Raiffa. Games and Decisions. Wiley, 1957.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    M. McGeachie and J. Doyle. Utility functions for ceteris paribus preferences. Computational Intelligence, 20(2):158–217, 2004. (Special Issue on Preferences in AI).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    H. Nguyen and P. Haddawy. The decision-theoretic video advisor. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 77–80, Madison, WI, 1999.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    F. Rossi, K. B. Venable, and T. Walsh. mCP nets: Representing and reasoning with preferences of multiple agents. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 729–734, San Jose, CL, 2004.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Y. Shoham. Conditional utility, utility independence, and utility networks. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 429–436, San Francisco, CA, 1997. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Y. Shoham. A symmetric view of probabilities and utilities. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1324–1329, 1997.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    V. Vapnik. Statistical Learning Theory. Wiley, Chichester, GB, 1998.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    G. Wahba. Spline Models for Observational Data, volume 59 of CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics. SIAM, 1990.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    N. Wilson. Consistency and constrained optimisation for conditional preferences. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 888–894, Valencia, 2004.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    N. Wilson. Extending CP-nets with stronger conditional preference statements. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 735–741, San Jose, CL, 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© CISM, Udine 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carmel Domshlak
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Industrial Engineering and ManagementTechnionIsrael

Personalised recommendations