Search
  • All Journals
Advanced Search
Search articles by Title, Author, Keywords, DOI
7.7CiteScore
2.0Impact Factor
Advanced Search
MAP  >  The Knowledge Engineering Review
2015 Volume 30
Article Contents
Next Previous
RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

An introduction to reasoning over qualitative multi-attribute preferences

  • 1.

    Instituto de Informática

  • 2.

    Department of Informatics

  • 3.

    Departamento de Informática

More Information
  • Abstract: Research on preferences has significantly increased in recent years, as it involves not only many subproblems to be investigated, such as elicitation, representation, and reasoning, but has also been the target of different research areas, for example, artificial intelligence and databases. In particular, much work has focused on qualitative preferences, because these are closer to the way people express their preferences in comparison with quantitative preferences. Against this background, a large number of approaches have been proposed, associated with heterogeneous areas, so that these approaches are usually just compared with those of the same area. In response, we present in this paper a survey of approaches to qualitative multi-attribute preference reasoning, covering different research areas. We introduce selected approaches that propose different techniques and algorithms, which take as input qualitative multi-attribute preference statements following a particular structure specified by the approach. We analyse each approach in a systematic way and discuss their commonalities and limitations.
  • 加载中
  • Adomavicius G. & Tuzhilin A.2005. Toward the next generation of recommender systems: a survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering17(6), 734–749.

    Google Scholar

    Alpaydin E.2010. Introduction to Machine Learning, 2nd edition. The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar

    Ayres L. & Furtado V.2007. OWLPref: Uma representação declarativa de preferências para web semântica. In Anais do XXVII Congresso da SBC, 1411–1419. SBC.

    Google Scholar

    Bacchus F. & Grove A.1995. Graphical models for preference and utility. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI’95, 3–10. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar

    Bistarelli S., Gadducci F., Larrosa J. & Rollon E.2008. A soft approach to multi-objective optimization. In Logic Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5366, Garcia de la Banda, M. & Pontelli, E. (eds), 764–768. Springer.

    Google Scholar

    Bistarelli S., Montanari U. & Rossi F.1997. Semiring-based constraint satisfaction and optimization. Journal of the ACM44, 201–236.

    Google Scholar

    Bistarelli S., Pini M. S., Rossi F. & Venable K. B.2010. From soft constraints to bipolar preferences: modelling framework and solving issues. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence22, 135–158.

    Google Scholar

    Börzsönyi S., Kossmann D. & Stocker K.2001. The skyline operator. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Data Engineering, 421–430. IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar

    Boutilier C., Brafman R. I., Domshlak C., Hoos H. H. & Poole D.2004. CP-nets: a tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research21(1), 135–191.

    Google Scholar

    Boutilier C., Brafman R. I., Hoos H. H. & Poole D.1999. Reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI’99, 71–80. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar

    Brafman R. I. & Domshlak C.2002. Introducing variable importance tradeoffs into CP-nets. In UAI, 69–76.

    Google Scholar

    Brafman R. I. & Domshlak C.2008. Graphically structured value-function compilation. Artificial Intelligence172, 325–349.

    Google Scholar

    Brafman R. I. & Domshlak C.2009. Preference handling—an introductory tutorial. AI Magazine30(1), 58–86.

    Google Scholar

    Brafman R. I., Domshlak C. & Shimony S. E.2006. On graphical modeling of preference and importance. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research25, 389–424.

    Google Scholar

    Chomicki J.2003. Preference formulas in relational queries. ACM Transactions on Database Systems28, 427–466.

    Google Scholar

    Chomicki J., Godfrey P., Gryz J. & Liang D.2005. Skyline with presorting: theory and optimizations. In Intelligent Information Processing and Web Mining. Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing 31, Klopotek, M., Wierzchon, S. & Trojanowski, K. (eds), 595–604. Springer.

    Google Scholar

    Delgrande J., Schaub T., Tompits H. & Wang K.2004. A classification and survey of preference handling approaches in nonmonotonic reasoning. Computational Intelligence20(2), 308–334.

    Google Scholar

    Domshlak C.2008. A snapshot on reasoning with qualitative preference statements in AI. In Preferences and Similarities. CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences 504, Maier, G., Rammerstorfer, F. G., Salenon, J., Schrefler, B., Serafini, P., Riccia, G., Dubois, D., Kruse, R. & Lenz, H.-J. (eds), 265–282. Springer.

    Google Scholar

    Domshlak C., Hüllermeier E., Kaci S. & Prade H.2011. Preferences in AI: an overview. Artificial Intelligence175, 1037–1052.

    Google Scholar

    Domshlak C. & Joachims T.2006. Unstructuring user preferences: efficient non-parametric utility revelation. In 21st Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI’05), 169–177.

    Google Scholar

    Domshlak C. & Joachims T.2007. Efficient and non-parametric reasoning over user preferences. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction17(1–2), 41–69.

    Google Scholar

    Domshlak C., Prestwich S. D., Rossi F., Venable K. B. & Walsh T.2006. Hard and soft constraints for reasoning about qualitative conditional preferences. Journal of Heuristics12(4–5), 263–285.

    Google Scholar

    Domshlak C., Rossi F., Venable K. B. & Walsh T.2003. Reasoning about soft constraints and conditional preferences: complexity results and approximation techniques. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 215–220. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar

    Doyle J. & McGeachie M.2003. Exercising qualitative control in autonomous adaptive survivable systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Self-Adaptive Software: Applications, IWSAS’01, 158–170. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Dubois D., Fargier H. & Prade H.1993. The calculus of fuzzy restrictions as a basis for flexible constraint satisfaction. In Second IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems2, 1131–1136.

    Google Scholar

    Dyer J. S.2005. MAUT: multiattribute utility theory. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Chapter 7, Jose Figueira, M. E. & Greco, S. (eds), 265–295. Springer Science + Business Media Inc.

    Google Scholar

    Fishburn P. C.1982. The Foundations of Expected Utility, D. Reidel Publishing.

    Google Scholar

    Flach P.2012. Machine Learning: The Art and Science of Algorithms That Make Sense of Data. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar

    Freuder E. C., Heffernan R., Wallace R. J. & Wilson N.2010. Lexicographically-ordered constraint satisfaction problems. Constraints15(1), 1–28.

    Google Scholar

    Freuder E. C. & Wallace R. J.1992. Partial constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence58(1–3), 21–70.

    Google Scholar

    Fürnkranz J. & Hüllermeier E.2011. Preference Learning. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Gelain M., Pini M. S., Rossi F., Venable K. B. & Wilson N.2010. Interval-valued soft constraint problems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence58, 261–298.

    Google Scholar

    Goldsmith J., Lang J., Truszczynski M. & Wilson N.2005. The computational complexity of dominance and consistency in CP-nets. In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI’05, 144–149. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar

    Hansson S. O.1996. What is ceteris paribus preference?Journal of Philosophical Logic425, 307–332.

    Google Scholar

    Hollink V., Someren M. & Wielinga B. J.2007. Discovering stages in web navigation for problem-oriented navigation support. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction17(1–2), 183–214.

    Google Scholar

    Hu R. & Pu P.2009. A comparative user study on rating vs. personality quiz based preference elicitation methods. In IUI’09: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 367–372. ACM.

    Google Scholar

    Hudson B. & Sandholm T.2004. Effectiveness of query types and policies for preference elicitation in combinatorial auctions. In AAMAS’04: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 386–393. IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar

    Junker U.2008. Preference-based problem solving for constraint programming, In Recent Advances in Constraints, Fages, F., Rossi, F. & Soliman, S. (eds), 109–126. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Kaci S.2011. Working with Preferences: Less is More. Cognitive Technologies. Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-17279-3.

    Google Scholar

    Keeney R. L. & Raiffa H.1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

    Google Scholar

    Kießling W.2002. Foundations of preferences in database systems. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, VLDB’02, 311–322. VLDB Endowment.

    Google Scholar

    Kießling W., Fischer S. & Doring S.2004. COSIMAB2B—sales automation for e-procurement. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on e-Commerce Technology, 2004. CEC 2004, 59–68.

    Google Scholar

    Koriche F.2012. Relational networks of conditional preferences. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming, ILP’11, 26–32. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Koriche F. & Zanuttini B.2010. Learning conditional preference networks. Artificial Intelligence174(11), 685–703.

    Google Scholar

    Lichtenstein S. & Slovic P.2006. The Construction of Preference. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar

    Luo X., Jennings N. R. & Shadbolt N.2006. Acquiring user tradeoff strategies and preferences for negotiating agents: a default-then-adjust method. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies64(4), 304–321.

    Google Scholar

    McGeachie M. & Doyle J.2002. Efficient utility functions for ceteris paribus preferences. In Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 279–284. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar

    McGeachie M. & Doyle J.2004. Utility functions for ceteris paribus preferences. Computational Intelligence20(2), 158–217.

    Google Scholar

    Meseguer P., Rossi F. & Schiex T.2006. Soft constraints. In Handbook of Constraint Programming, Rossi, F., van Beek, P. & Walsh, T. (eds), 281–328. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar

    Nunes I., Barbosa S. D., Cowan D., Miles S., Luck M. & de Lucena C. J.2013. Natural language-based representation of user preferences. Interacting with Computers27(2), 133–158.

    Google Scholar

    Nunes I., Miles S., Luck M., Barbosa S. & Lucena C.2014. Pattern-based explanation for automated decisions. In Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI’2014, 669–674.

    Google Scholar

    Nunes I., Miles S., Luck M. & Lucena C.2012a. User-centric preference-based decision making (extended abstract). In Eleventh International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’12), Conitzer, V., Winikoff, M., Padgham, L. & van der Hoek, W. (eds), 1225–1226. IFAAMAS.

    Google Scholar

    Nunes I., Miles S., Luck M. & Lucena C.2012b. User-centric principles in automated decision making. In 21st Brazilian Symposium on Artificial Intelligence (SBIA 2012). LNCS 7589, Barros, L., Finger, M., Pozo, A., Gimennez-Lugo, G. & Castilho, M. (eds), 42–51. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Patel-Schneider P. F., Hayes P. & Horrocks I.2004. OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax Section. Technical report, W3C.

    Google Scholar

    Pohl K., Böckle G. & Linden F. J. v. d2005. Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques. Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

    Google Scholar

    Pu P. & Chen L.2008. User-involved preference elicitation for product search and recommender systems. AI Magazine29(4), 93–103.

    Google Scholar

    Ricci F., Rokach L., Shapira B. & Kantor P. B. (eds) 2011. Recommender Systems Handbook. Springer.

    Google Scholar

    Schiex T., Fargier H. & Verfaillie G.1995. Valued constraint satisfaction problems: hard and easy problems. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence – Volume 1, IJCAI’95, 631–637. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar

    Shafir E., Simonson I. & Tversky A.1998. Reason-based choice. In Preference, Eldar Shafir (ed.) Belief and Similarity. 937–962. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar

    Siberski W., Pan J. Z. & Thaden U.2006. Querying the semantic web with preferences. In The Semantic Web—ISWC 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4273, Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M. & Aroyo L. (eds), 612–624. Springer.

    Google Scholar

    Simonson I. & Tversky A.1992. Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research29(3), 281–295.

    Google Scholar

    Stein J., Nunes I. & Cirilo E.2014. Preference-based feature model configuration with multiple stakeholders. In Proceedings of the 8th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2014) (to appear).

    Google Scholar

    Su X. & Khoshgoftaar T. M.2009. A survey of collaborative filtering techniques. Advances in Artificial Intelligence2009, 4:2–4:2.

    Google Scholar

    Vapnik V. N.1998. Statistical Learning Theory. Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar

    Von Neumann J. & Morgenstern O.1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar

    Walsh T.2007. Representing and reasoning with preferences. AI Magazine28(4), 59–70.

    Google Scholar

    Wilson N.2004a. Consistency and constrained optimisation for conditional preferences. In ECAI, 888–894.

    Google Scholar

    Wilson N.2004b. Extending CP-nets with stronger conditional preference statements. In Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI’04, 735–741. AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar

    Zadrozny S. & Kacprzyk J.2006. Bipolar queries and queries with preferences (invited paper). In 17th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, 2006. DEXA’06, 415–419.

    Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Ingrid Nunes, Simon Miles, Michael Luck, Carlos J. P. Lucena. 2015. An introduction to reasoning over qualitative multi-attribute preferences. The Knowledge Engineering Review 30(3)342−372, doi: 10.1017/S0269888915000016
    Ingrid Nunes, Simon Miles, Michael Luck, Carlos J. P. Lucena. 2015. An introduction to reasoning over qualitative multi-attribute preferences. The Knowledge Engineering Review 30(3)342−372, doi: 10.1017/S0269888915000016
    shu
Download PDF

Article Metrics

Article views(24) PDF downloads(12)

Other Articles By Authors

RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

An introduction to reasoning over qualitative multi-attribute preferences

  • 1.

    Instituto de Informática

  • 2.

    Department of Informatics

  • 3.

    Departamento de Informática

  • Published online: 03 March 2015
The Knowledge Engineering Review  30,  2015, 30(3): 342−372  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Abstract: Research on preferences has significantly increased in recent years, as it involves not only many subproblems to be investigated, such as elicitation, representation, and reasoning, but has also been the target of different research areas, for example, artificial intelligence and databases. In particular, much work has focused on qualitative preferences, because these are closer to the way people express their preferences in comparison with quantitative preferences. Against this background, a large number of approaches have been proposed, associated with heterogeneous areas, so that these approaches are usually just compared with those of the same area. In response, we present in this paper a survey of approaches to qualitative multi-attribute preference reasoning, covering different research areas. We introduce selected approaches that propose different techniques and algorithms, which take as input qualitative multi-attribute preference statements following a particular structure specified by the approach. We analyse each approach in a systematic way and discuss their commonalities and limitations.

    HTML

    Acknowledgments

    • The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve this paper. FAPERGS and CNPq #442582/2014-5 are also acknowledged.

    • Table 16 shows this term in italics in order to provide a better visual distinction between the terms qualitative and quantitative.

    Rights and permissions
    • © Cambridge University Press, 2015 2015Cambridge University Press
References (69)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Ingrid Nunes, Simon Miles, Michael Luck, Carlos J. P. Lucena. 2015. An introduction to reasoning over qualitative multi-attribute preferences. The Knowledge Engineering Review 30(3)342−372, doi: 10.1017/S0269888915000016
    Ingrid Nunes, Simon Miles, Michael Luck, Carlos J. P. Lucena. 2015. An introduction to reasoning over qualitative multi-attribute preferences. The Knowledge Engineering Review 30(3)342−372, doi: 10.1017/S0269888915000016
    shu

    • Catalog

      /

      DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
      Return
      Return