lp-tree
The complexity of unsupervised learning of lexicographic preferences
Fargier, Hélène, Gimenez, Pierre-François, Mengin, Jérôme, Nguyen, Bao Ngoc Le
This paper considers the task of learning users' preferences on a combinatorial set of alternatives, as generally used by online configurators, for example. In many settings, only a set of selected alternatives during past interactions is available to the learner. Fargier et al. [2018] propose an approach to learn, in such a setting, a model of the users' preferences that ranks previously chosen alternatives as high as possible; and an algorithm to learn, in this setting, a particular model of preferences: lexicographic preferences trees (LP-trees). In this paper, we study complexity-theoretical problems related to this approach. We give an upper bound on the sample complexity of learning an LP-tree, which is logarithmic in the number of attributes. We also prove that computing the LP tree that minimises the empirical risk can be done in polynomial time when restricted to the class of linear LP-trees.
Constrained Optimization with Qualitative Preferences
The Conditional Preference Network (CP-net) graphically represents user's qualitative and conditional preference statements under the ceteris paribus interpretation. The constrained CP-net is an extension of the CP-net, to a set of constraints. The existing algorithms for solving the constrained CP-net require the expensive dominance testing operation. We propose three approaches to tackle this challenge. In our first solution, we alter the constrained CP-net by eliciting additional relative importance statements between variables, in order to have a total order over the outcomes. We call this new model, the constrained Relative Importance Network (constrained CPR-net). Consequently, We show that the Constrained CPR-net has one single optimal outcome (assuming the constrained CPR-net is consistent) that we can obtain without dominance testing. In our second solution, we extend the Lexicographic Preference Tree (LP-tree) to a set of constraints. Then, we propose a recursive backtrack search algorithm, that we call Search-LP, to find the most preferable outcome. We prove that the first feasible outcome returned by Search-LP (without dominance testing) is also preferable to any other feasible outcome. Finally, in our third solution, we preserve the semantics of the CP-net and propose a divide and conquer algorithm that compares outcomes according to dominance testing.
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.14)
- North America > United States > California > San Francisco County > San Francisco (0.14)
- North America > United States > New York (0.04)
- North America > Canada (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Search (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Optimization (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Constraint-Based Reasoning (1.00)
A Knowledge Compilation Map for Conditional Preference Statements-based Languages
Fargier, Hélène, Mengin, Jérôme
Conditional preference statements have been used to compactly represent preferences over combinatorial domains. They are at the core of CP-nets and their generalizations, and lexicographic preference trees. Several works have addressed the complexity of some queries (optimization, dominance in particular). We extend in this paper some of these results, and study other queries which have not been addressed so far, like equivalence, thereby contributing to a knowledge compilation map for languages based on conditional preference statements. We also introduce a new parameterised family of languages, which enables to balance expressiveness against the complexity of some queries.
- Europe > France > Occitanie > Haute-Garonne > Toulouse (0.05)
- North America > Canada > Quebec > Capitale-Nationale Region > Québec (0.04)
- North America > Canada > Quebec > Capitale-Nationale Region > Quebec City (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Cognitive Science > Problem Solving (0.68)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Constraint-Based Reasoning (0.68)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Information Retrieval > Query Processing (0.34)