Non-additive Utility Functions: Choquet Integral Versus Weighted DNF Formulas

  • Eyke Hüllermeier
  • Ingo Schmitt
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)


In the context of conjoint analysis, a consumer’s purchase preferences can be modeled by means of a utility function that maps an attribute vector describing a product to a real number reflecting the preference for that product. Since simple additive utility functions are not able to capture interactions between different attributes, several types of non-additive functions have been proposed in recent years. In this paper, we compare two such model classes, namely the (discrete) Choquet integral and weighted DNF formulas as used in a logic-based query language called CQQL. Although both approaches have been developed independently of each other in different fields (decision analysis and information retrieval), they are actually quite similar and share several commonalities. By developing a conceptual link between the two approaches, we provide new insights that help to decide which of the two alternatives is to be preferred under what conditions.


  1. Baier D, Brusch M (eds) (2009) Conjointanalyse: Methoden – Anwendungen – Praxisbeispiele. Springer, Berlin/HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  2. Baier D, Schmitt I (2012) Logic based conjoint analysis using the commuting quantum query language. In: Proceedings of the joint annual conference of the German Association for Pattern Recognition (DAGM) and the German Classification Society (GfKl), Frankfurt am Main/MarburgGoogle Scholar
  3. Choquet G (1954) Theory of capacities. Annales de l’institut Fourier 5:131–295MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Codd EF (1971) A database sublanguage founded on the relational calculus. In: ACM SIGFIDET workshop on data description, access and control, San Diego, pp 35–68Google Scholar
  5. Domshlak C, Hüllermeier E, Kaci S, Prade H (2011) Preferences in AI: an overview. Artif Intell 175(7–8):1037–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fürnkranz J, Hüllermeier E (eds) (2011) Preference learning. Springer, Berlin/HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  7. Gonzales C, Perny P (2004) GAI networks for utility elicitation. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Whistler, pp 224–234Google Scholar
  8. Grabisch M (1997) k-order additive discrete fuzzy measures and their representation. Fuzzy Sets Syst 92(2):167–189MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Green PE, Rao VR (1971) Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. J Mark Res VIII:355–363Google Scholar
  10. Hüllermeier E, Tehrani AF (2012) On the VC dimension of the Choquet integral. In: IPMU-2012, 14th international conference on information processing and management of uncertainty in knowledge-based systems, CataniaGoogle Scholar
  11. Klement E, Mesiar R, Pap E (2002) Triangular norms. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht/Boston/LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Kolesarova A, Stupnanova A, Beganova J (2011) On extension of fuzzy measures to aggregation functions. In: Proceedings of the Eusflat-2011, 7th international conference of the European Society for fuzzy logic and technology, Aix-les-Bains, pp 28–32Google Scholar
  13. Maier D (1983) The theory of relational databases. Computer Science Press, RockvilleMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Murofushi T, Soneda S (1993) Techniques for reading fuzzy measures (III): interaction index. In: Proceedings of the 9th fuzzy systems symposium, Sapporo, pp 693–696Google Scholar
  15. von Neumann J (1932) Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Rota G (1964) On the foundations of combinatorial theory I. Theory of Möbius functions. Probab Theory Relat Fields 2(4):340–368. doi:10.1007/BF00531932MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Schmitt I (2008) QQL: a DB&IR query language. VLDB J 17(1):39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schmitt I, Zellhöfer D (2012) Condition learning from user preferences. In: Sixth international conference on research challenges in information science, Valencia. IEEE, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  19. Shapley LS (1953) A value for n-person games. In: Kuhn H, Tucker A (eds) Contributions to the theory of games, vol II. Annals of mathematical studies 28. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 307–317Google Scholar
  20. Sugeno M (1974) Theory of fuzzy integrals and its application. PhD thesis, Tokyo Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  21. Tehrani AF, Cheng W, Dembczynski K, Hüllermeier E (2012) Learning monotone nonlinear models using the Choquet integral. Mach Learn 89(1):183–211MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Vapnik V (1998) Statistical learning theory. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Zellhöfer D, Schmitt I (2010) A preference-based approach for interactive weight learning: learning weights within a logic-based query language. Distrib Parallel Databases 27(1):31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of MarburgMarburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Computer ScienceTechnical University of CottbusCottbusGermany

Personalised recommendations