Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-8p85h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-26T15:25:19.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An introduction to reasoning over qualitative multi-attribute preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2015

Ingrid Nunes ,
Simon Miles ,
Michael Luck  and
Carlos J. P. Lucena
Ingrid Nunes
Affiliation:
Instituto de Informática, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, 91501-970, Brazil e-mail: ingridnunes@inf.ufrgs.br
Simon Miles
Affiliation:
Department of Informatics, King’s College London, London, WC2R 2LS, UK e-mail: simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk, michael.luck@kcl.ac.uk
Michael Luck
Affiliation:
Department of Informatics, King’s College London, London, WC2R 2LS, UK e-mail: simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk, michael.luck@kcl.ac.uk
Carlos J. P. Lucena
Affiliation:
Departamento de Informática, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Rio de Janeiro, 22451-900, Brazil e-mail: lucena@inf.puc-rio.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , May 2015 , pp. 342 - 372
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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 Engineering 17(6), 734–749.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U. & Rossi, F. 1997. Semiring-based constraint satisfaction and optimization. Journal of the ACM 44, 201–236.CrossRefGoogle 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 Intelligence 22, 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 Research 21(1), 135–191.CrossRefGoogle 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 Intelligence 172, 325–349.Google Scholar
Brafman, R. I. & Domshlak, C. 2009. Preference handling—an introductory tutorial. AI Magazine 30(1), 58–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brafman, R. I., Domshlak, C. & Shimony, S. E. 2006. On graphical modeling of preference and importance. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 25, 389–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomicki, J. 2003. Preference formulas in relational queries. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 28, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delgrande, J., Schaub, T., Tompits, H. & Wang, K. 2004. A classification and survey of preference handling approaches in nonmonotonic reasoning. Computational Intelligence 20(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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domshlak, C., Hüllermeier, E., Kaci, S. & Prade, H. 2011. Preferences in AI: an overview. Artificial Intelligence 175, 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 Interaction 17(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 Heuristics 12(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 Systems 2, 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.CrossRefGoogle 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. Constraints 15(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Freuder, E. C. & Wallace, R. J. 1992. Partial constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence 58(1–3), 21–70.Google Scholar
Fürnkranz, J. & Hüllermeier, E. 2011. Preference Learning. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelain, M., Pini, M. S., Rossi, F., Venable, K. B. & Wilson, N. 2010. Interval-valued soft constraint problems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 58, 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 Logic 425, 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 Interaction 17(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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaci, S. 2011. Working with Preferences: Less is More. Cognitive Technologies. Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-17279-3.CrossRefGoogle 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 Intelligence 174(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 Studies 64(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 Intelligence 20(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 Computers 27(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. d 2005. 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 Magazine 29(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 Research 29(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 Intelligence 2009, 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 Magazine 28(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