Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Efficient and non-parametric reasoning over user preferences

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We consider the problem of modeling and reasoning about statements of ordinal preferences expressed by a user, such as monadic statement like “X is good,” dyadic statements like “X is better than Y,” etc. Such qualitative statements may be explicitly expressed by the user, or may be inferred from observable user behavior. This paper presents a novel technique for efficient reasoning about sets of such preference statements in a semantically rigorous manner. Specifically, we propose a novel approach for generating an ordinal utility function from a set of qualitative preference statements, drawing upon techniques from knowledge representation and machine learning. We provide theoretical evidence that the new method provides an efficient and expressive tool for reasoning about ordinal user preferences. Empirical results further confirm that the new method is effective on real-world data, making it promising for a wide spectrum of applications that require modeling and reasoning about user preferences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bacchus, F., Grove, A.: Graphical models for preference and utility. In: UAI-1995, pp. 3–10. Montreal (1995)

  • Bertsekas, D., Nedic, A., Ozdaglar, A.: Convex Analysis and Optimization. Athena Scientific. Nashua, NH (2003)

  • Blythe, J.: Visual exploration and incremental utility elicitation. In: AAAI-02, pp. 526–532. Edmonton (2002)

  • Boser, B.E., Guyon, I.M., Vapnik, V.N.: A traininig algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. In: Haussler, D. (ed.) Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pp. 144–152. Pittsburg, PA (1992)

  • Boutilier, C.: Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In: Proceedings of the Third Conference on Knowledge Representation (KR–94), pp. 75–86. Bonn (1994)

  • Boutilier, C., Bacchus, F., Brafman, R.I.: UCP-networks: A directed graphical representation of conditional utilities. In: UAI-2001, pp. 56–64. Seatlle, WA (2001)

  • Boutilier C., Brafman R., Domshlak C., Hoos H., Poole D. (2004). CP-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning about conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. J. Artif. Intel. Res. 21: 135–191

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier, C., Patrascu, R., Poupart, P., Schuurmans, D.: Regret-based utility elicitation in constraint-based decision problems. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Edinburgh, Scotland (2005)

  • Brafman, R., Domshlak, C., Kogan, T.: Compact value-function representations for qualitative preferences. In: UAI-04, Banff, Canada (2004)

  • Burke R.D., Hammond K.J., Young B.C. (1997). The FindMe approach to assisted browsing. IEEE Expert 12(4): 32–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chai J., Horvath V., Nicolov N., Stys M., Kambhatla N., Zadrozny W., Melville P. (2002). Natural language assistant: A dialog system for online product recommendation. AI Mag. 23(2): 63–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm R.M., Sosa E. (1966). On the logic of ‘Intrinsically Better’. Am. Philos. Q. 3: 244–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomicki J. (2003). Preference formulas in relational queries. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 28(4): 427–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen W., Shapire R., Singer Y. (1999). Learning to order things. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 10: 243–270

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cortes C., Vapnik V. (1995). Support–vector networks. Mach. Learn. J. 20: 273–297

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Domshlak, C., Joachims, T.: Unstructuring user preferences: Efficient non-parametric utility revelation. In: Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), Edinburgh, Scotland (2005)

  • Doyle J. (2004). Prospects for preferences. Comput. Intell. 20(2): 111–136

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle J., Thomason R.H. (1999). Background to qualitative decision theory. AI Mag. 20(2): 55–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J., Wellman, M.: Representing preferences as ceteris paribus comparatives. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Decision-Theoretic Planning, pp. 69–75. Stanford, CA (1994)

  • Fishburn P.C. (1982). The Foundations of Expected Utility. Reidel, Dordrecht

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Freund Y., Iyer R., Schapire R.E., Singer Y. (2003). An efficient boosting algorithm for combining preferences. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 4: 933–969

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, J., Lang, J., Truszczynski, M., Wilson, N.: The computational complexity of dominance and consistency in CP-nets. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 144–149. Edinburgh, Scotland (2005)

  • Green P.E., Krieger A.M., Wind Y. (2001). Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces 31(3): 56–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha, V., Haddawy, P.: A hybrid approach to reasoning with partially elicited preference models. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 263–270. Morgan Kaufmann, Stockholm, Sweden (1999)

  • Haddawy P., Ha V., Restificar A., Geisler B., Miyamoto J. (2003). Preference elicitation via theory refinement. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 4: 317–337

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson S.O. (2001a). Preference logic. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (eds) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, IInd edn, vol. 4, pp 319–394. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson S.O. (2001b). The Structure of Values and Norms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Herbrich, R., Graepel, T., Obermayer, K.: Large margin rank boundaries for ordinal regression. In: Advances in Large Margin Classifiers, pp. 115–132. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2000)

  • Herfert, M., La Mura, P.: Estimation of consumer preferences via ordinal decision-theoretic entropy. Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Working Paper HHL-Arbeitspapier Nr. 64 (2004)

  • Joachims, T., Granka, L., Pang, B., Hembrooke, H., Gay, G.: Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback. In: ACM Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR), pp. 154–161. Salvador, Brazil (2005)

  • Keeney R.L., Raiffa H. (1976). Decision with Multiple Objectives. Wiley, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimeldorf G., Wahba G. (1971). Some results on tchebycheffian spline functions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 33: 82–95

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Krantz D.H., Luce R.D., Suppes P., Tversky A. (1971). Foundations of Measurement. Academic, NY

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • La Mura, P.: Foundations of Multi-Agent Systems. Ph.D. thesis, Graduate School of Business, Stanford (1999)

  • La Mura, P.: Decision-theoretic entropy. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, pp. 35–44. Bloomington, IN (2003)

  • La Mura, P., Shoham, Y.: Expected utility networks. In: UAI-1999, pp. 367–373. Stockholm, Sweden (1999)

  • Lang J. (2004). Logical preference representation and combinatorial vote. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 42(1–3): 37–71

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Linden, G., Hanks, S., Lesh, N.: Interactive assessment of user preference models: The automated travel assistant. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on User Modeling, pp. 67–78. Chia Laguna, Sardinia, Italy (1997)

  • McGeachie M., Doyle J. (2004). Utility functions for ceteris paribus preferences. Comput. Intell. 20(2): 158–217

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • McJones, P.: Eachmovie collaborative filtering data set. DEC Systems Research Center (1997)

  • Packard D.J. (1975). A preference logic minimally complete for expected utility maximization. J. Philos. Logic. 4(2): 223–235

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pu P., Faltings B. (2004). Decision tradeoff using example critiquing and constraint programming. Constr. Int. J. 9(4): 289–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pu, P., Faltings, B., Torrens, M.: User-involved preference elicitation. In: Working notes of the Workshop on Configuration (IJCAI-2003). Acapulco, Mexico (2003)

  • Quinlan, J.R.: C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA (1993)

  • Riedl, J., Konstan, J., Lam, S., Herlocker, J.: Movielens collaborative filtering data set. http://www.grouplens.org (2006)

  • Shearin, S., Lieberman, H.: Intelligent profiling by example. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. Santa Fe, NM, USA (2001)

  • Shoham, Y.: Conditional utility, utility independence, and utility networks. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 429–436. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA (1997a)

  • Shoham, Y.: A symmetric view of probabilities and utilities. In: IJCAI-1997, pp. 1324–1329. Nagoya, Japan (1997b)

  • Vapnik, V.: Statistical Learning Theory. Wiley (1998)

  • von Wright, G.H.: The logic of preference reconsidered. Theory and Decisions 3, 140–167. Reprinted in [von Wright, 1984] (1972)

  • Wright G.H. (1984). Philosophical logic: Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahba, G.: Spline Models for Observational Data, vol. 59 of CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics. SIAM (1990)

  • Wilson, N.: Extending CP-nets with stronger conditional preference statements. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. San Jose, CL (2004)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, 32000, Israel

    Carmel Domshlak

  2. Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    Thorsten Joachims

Authors
  1. Carmel Domshlak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thorsten Joachims
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmel Domshlak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Domshlak, C., Joachims, T. Efficient and non-parametric reasoning over user preferences. User Model User-Adap Inter 17, 41–69 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-006-9022-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-006-9022-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation