Jan Chomicki
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
The handling of user preferences is becoming an increasingly important issue in present-day information systems. Among others, preferences are used for information filtering and extraction to reduce the volume of data presented to the user. They are also used to keep track of user profiles and formulate policies to improve and automate decision making.We propose here a simple, logical framework for formulating preferences as preference formulas. The framework does not impose any restrictions on the preference relations, and allows arbitrary operation and predicate signatures in preference formulas. It also makes the composition of preference relations straightforward. We propose a simple, natural embedding of preference formulas into relational algebra (and SQL) through a single winnow operator parameterized by a preference formula. The embedding makes possible the formulation of complex preference queries, for example, involving aggregation, by piggybacking on existing SQL constructs. It also leads in a natural way to the definition of further, preference-related concepts like ranking. Finally, we present general algebraic laws governing the winnow operator and its interactions with other relational algebra operators. The preconditions on the applicability of the laws are captured by logical formulas. The laws provide a formal foundation for the algebraic optimization of preference queries. We demonstrate the usefulness of our approach through numerous examples.
- Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., and Vianu, V. 1995. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Agrawal, R. and Wimmers, E. L. 2000. A framework for expressing and combining preferences. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, New York, 297--306. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andreka, H., Ryan, M., and Schobbens, P.-Y. 2002. Operators and laws for combining preference relations. J. Logic Comput. 12, 1, 13--53.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Börzsönyi, S., Kossmann, D., and Stocker, K. 2001. The skyline operator. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif., 421--430. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Boutilier, C., Brafman, R. I., Hoos, H. H., and Poole, D. 1999. Reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brewka, G. and Eiter, T. 1999. Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs. Artif. Intel. 109, 1-2, 297--356. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bruno, N., Chaudhuri, S., and Gravano, L. 2002. Top-k selection queries over relational databases: Mapping strategies and performance evaluation. ACM Trans. Datab. Syst. 27, 2 (June), 153--187. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Burke, R. 1999. Integrating knowledge-based and collaborative-filtering recommender systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on AI and Electronic Commerce.Google Scholar
- Carey, M. and Kossmann, D. 1997. On saying enough already! in SQL. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, New York, 219--230. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chernoff, H. 1954. Rational selection of decision functions. Econometrica 22, 422--443.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chomicki, J. 2002. Querying with intrinsic preferences. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Extending Database Technology. Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2287, Springer-Verlag, New York, 34--51. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chomicki, J., Godfrey, P., Gryz, J., and Liang, D. 2003. Skyline with presorting. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering. Poster. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif.Google Scholar
- Creignou, N., Hermann, M., and Pichler, R. 2001. Complexity of Constraint Solving Problems. In Proceedings of the International Conferences on Constraint Programming and Logic Programming. Tutorial Notes.Google Scholar
- Cristani, M. 2002. Many-sorted preference relations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.Google Scholar
- Delgrande, J. P., Schaub, T., and Tompits, H. 2000. Logic programs with compiled preferences. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
- Eisenberg, A. and Melton, J. 1999. SQL:1999, formerly known as SQL3. ACM SIGMOD Record 28, 1, 131--138. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fishburn, P. C. 1970. Utility Theory for Decision Making. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
- Fishburn, P. C. 1999. Preference structures and their numerical representations. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 217, 359--383. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Giannotti, F., Greco, S., Sacca, D., and Zaniolo, C. 1997. Programming with nondeterminism in deductive databases. Ann. Math. Artif. Intel. 19, 3--4. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Govindarajan, K., Jayaraman, B., and Mantha, S. 1995. Preference logic programming. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming. 731--745.Google Scholar
- Govindarajan, K., Jayaraman, B., and Mantha, S. 2001. Preference queries in deductive databases. New Gen. Comput., 57--86. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Guo, S., Sun, W., and Weiss, M. 1996. Solving satisfiability and implication problems in database systems. ACM Trans. Datab. Syst. 21, 2, 270--293. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hansson, S. O. 2001. Preference logic. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, D. Gabbay, Ed. Vol. 8.Google Scholar
- Hristidis, V., Koudas, N., and Papakonstantinou, Y. 2001. PREFER: A system for the efficient execution of multiparametric ranked queries. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, New York, 259--270. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Huet, G. 1976. Ph.D. dissertation. Univ. de Paris VII, Paris, France.Google Scholar
- Hughes, R. 1980. Rationality and intransitive preferences. Analysis 40, 132--134.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kanellakis, P. C., Kuper, G. M., and Revesz, P. Z. 1995. Constraint query languages. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 51, 1 (Aug.), 26--52. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kieβling, W. 2002. Foundations of preferences in database systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Data Bases. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kieβling, W. and Güntzer, U. 1994. Database reasoning---A deductive framework for solving large and complex problems by means of subsumption. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Information Systems and Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 777, Springer-Verlag, New York, 118--138. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kieβling, W. and Hafenrichter, B. 2002. Optimizing preference queries for personalized web services. In Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Communications, Internet and Information Technology. Also Tech. Rep. 2002-12, July 2002, Institute of Computer Science, University of Augsburg, Germany.Google Scholar
- Kieβling, W. and Hafenrichter, B. 2003. Algebraic optimization of relational preference queries. Tech. Rep. 2003-1, Institut für Informatik, Universität Augsburg.Google Scholar
- Kieβling, W., Hafenrichter, B., Fischer, S., and Holland, S. 2001. Preference XPATH---A query language for E-commerce. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference Wirtschaftsinformatik. Augsburg, Germany, 43--62.Google Scholar
- Kieβling, W. and Köstler, G. 2002. Preference SQL - Design, implementation, experience. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Data Bases. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Knight, K. 1989. Unification: A multidisciplinary survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 21, 1, 93--124. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kossmann, D., Ramsak, F., and Rost, S. 2002. Shooting stars in the sky: An online algorithm for skyline queries. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Data Bases. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Köstler, G., Kieβling, W., Thöne, H., and Güntzer, U. 1995. Fixpoint iteration with subsumption in deductive databases. J. Intel. Inf. Syst. 4, 123--148. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kuper, G., Libkin, L., and Paredaens, J., Eds. 2000. Constraint Databases. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lacroix, M. and Lavency, P. 1987. Preferences: Putting More Knowledge Into Queries. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Data Bases. 217--225. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mantha, S. M. 1991. First-order preference theories and their applications. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utah. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Papadias, D., Tao, Y., Fu, G., and Seeger:, B. 2003. An optimal and progressive algorithm for skyline queries. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, New York, 467--478. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sakama, C. and Inoue, K. 2000. Prioritized logic programming and its application to commonsense reasoning. Artif. Intel. 123, 185--222. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stolze, M. 2000. Soft navigation in product catalogs. Int. J. Digital Lib. 3, 1, 60--66.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tan, S.-W. and Pearl, J. 1994. Specification and evaluation of preferences under uncertainty. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.Google Scholar
- Torlone, R. and Ciaccia, P. 2002. Which are my preferred items? In Proceedings of the Workshop on Recommendation and Personalization in E-Commerce.Google Scholar
- Torlone, R. and Ciaccia, P. 2003. Management of user preferences in data intensive applications. In Proceedings of the 11th Italian Symposium on Advanced Database Systems (SEBD).Google Scholar
- Vardi, M. Y. 1982. The complexity of relational query languages. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, 137--146. Google ScholarDigital Library
- von Wright, G. H. 1963. The Logic of Preference. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
- Wellman, M. P. and Doyle, J. 1991. Preferential semantics for goals. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 698--703.Google Scholar
- Wong, S. T. C. 1994. Preference-based decision making for cooperative knowledge-based systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 12, 4, 407--435. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Preference formulas in relational queries
Recommendations
Optimization of relational preference queries
ADC '05: Proceedings of the 16th Australasian database conference - Volume 39The design and implementation of advanced personalized database applications requires a preference-driven approach. Representing preferences as strict partial orders is a good choice in most practical cases. Therefore the efficient integration of ...
Semantic optimization techniques for preference queries
Preference queries are relational algebra or SQL queries that contain occurrences of the winnow operator (find the most preferred tuples in a given relation). Such queries are parameterized by specific preference relations. Semantic optimization ...
Efficient algorithms for processing preference queries
SAC '16: Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied ComputingThe widespread of applications like e-commerce and recommendation systems requires the use of efficient customization techniques and user preferences handling. In database community a lot of research on this topic has been focused on extending standard ...
Comments