GAI-networks: optimization, ranking and collective choice in combinatorial domains

• Autorzy: Gonzales C. , Perny P. , Queiroz S.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper deals with preference representation and decision-making problems in the context of multiattribute utility theory. We focus on the generalized additive decomposable utility model (GAI) which allows interactions between attributes while preserving some decomposability. We present procedures to deal with the problem of optimization (choice) and ranking of multiattribute items. We also address multiperson decision problems and compromise search using weighted Tchebycheff distances. These procedures are all based on GAI networks, a graphical , model used to represent GAI utilities. Results of numerical experiments highlight the practical efficiency of our procedures.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

GAI networks; graphical models; optimization; ranking; compromise search

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Poznańskiej
• Czasopismo: Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences
• Rocznik: 2008
• Tom: Vol. 33, No. 1
• Strony: 3--24
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 22 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Gonzales C.

autor

Perny P.

autor

Queiroz S.

• Laboratoire d'Informatique de Paris 6, UPMC. 104 Av. du President Kennedy, 75016 Paris, France,

Bibliografia

• [1]Bacchus F., Grove A., Graphical models for preference and utility. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI’95), 1995, 3-10.
• [2]Boutilier C., Bacchus F., Brafman R., UCP-networks: A directed graphical representation of conditional utilities. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI’01), 2001, 56-64.
• [3]Boutilier C., Brafman R., Domshlak C., Hoos H., Poole D., CP-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 21, 2004, 135-191.
• [4]Brafman R., Domshlak C., Introducing variable importance tradeoffs into CPnets. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI’02), 2002, 69-76.
• [5]Brafman R., Domshlak C., Kogan T., Compact value-function representations for qualitative preferences. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI’04), 2004, 51-58.
• [6]Braziunas D., Boutilier C., Local utility elicitation in G AI models. In: Proceedings of the Twenty First Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI’05), 2005, 42-49.
• [7]Chateauneuf A., Wakker P., From local to global additive representation. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 22, 1993, 523-545.
• [8]Cowell R., Dawid A., Lauritzen S., Spiegelhalter D., Probabilistic Networks and Expert Systems. Statistics for Engineering and Information Science. Springer-Verlag, 1999.
• [9]de Givry S., Zytnicki M., Heras F., Larrosa J., Existential arc consistency: Getting closer to full arc consistency in weighted CSPs. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’05), 2005, 84-89.
• [10]Debreu G., Continuity properties of paretian utility. International Economic Review, 5, 1964, 285-293.
• [11]Engel, Y., Wellman M.P., Generalized value decomposition and structured multiattribute auctions. In: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC’07), ACM Press, 2007, 227-236.
• [12]Fishburn P.C, Interdependence and additivity in multivariate, unidimensional expected utility theory. International Economic Review, 8, 1967, 335-342.
• [13]Gonzales C., Perny P., GAI networks for utility elicitation. In: Proceedings of theNinth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representationand Reasoning (KR’04), Whistler, BC, Canada, 2004, 224-234.
• [14]Jensen F., An introduction to Bayesian Networks. Taylor and Francis, 1996.
• [15]Krantz D., Luce R.D., Suppes P., Tversky A., Foundations of Measurement (Additive and Polynomial Representations), volume 1. Academic Press, 1971.
• [16]Meseguer P., Schiex T., Constraint processing. In: Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’05) Tutorial, 2005.
• [17]Nilsson D., An efficient algorithm for finding the M most probable configurations in probabilistic expert systems. Statistics and Computing, 8, 2, 1998, 159-173.
• [18]Pini M.S., Rossi F., Venable K.B., Walsh T., Aggregating partially ordered preferences: impossibility and possibility results. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK’05), 10, 2005, 193-206.
• [19]Rossi F., Venable K.B., Walsh T., mCP nets: Representing and reasoning with preferences of multiple agents. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’04), 2004, 729-734.
• [20]Schiex T., Fargier H., Verfaillie G., Problèmes de satisfaction de contraintes values. Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle, 11, 3, 1997, 339-373.
• [21]Steuer R.E., Choo E.-U., An interactive weighted Tchebycheff procedure for multiple objective programming. Mathematical Programming, 26, 1983, 326-344.
• [22]Wierzbicki A.P., On the completeness and constructiveness of parametric characterizations to vector optimization problems. OR Spektrum, 8, 1986, 73-87.