Decomposition Strategies for Constructive Preference Elicitation

We tackle the problem of constructive preference elicitation, that is the problem of learning user preferences over very large decision problems, involving a combinatorial space of possible outcomes. In this setting, the suggested configuration is synthesized on-the-fly by solving a constrained optimization problem, while the preferences are learned itera tively by interacting with the user. Previous work has shown that Coactive Learning is a suitable method for learning user preferences in constructive scenarios. In Coactive Learning the user provides feedback to the algorithm in the form of an improvement to a suggested configuration. When the problem involves many decision variables and constraints, this type of interaction poses a significant cognitive burden on the user. We propose a decomposition technique for large preference-based decision problems relying exclusively on inference and feedback over partial configurations. This has the clear advantage of drastically reducing the user cognitive load. Additionally, part-wise inference can be (up to exponentially) less computationally demanding than inference over full configurations. We discuss the theoretical implications of working with parts and present promising empirical results on one synthetic and two realistic constructive problems.

[1]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Coactive Learning , 2015, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[2]  Daphne Koller,et al.  Making Rational Decisions Using Adaptive Utility Elicitation , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[3]  P ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % ? ? ? ? , 1991 .

[4]  Thomas Schiex,et al.  Soft Constraints , 2000, WLP.

[5]  Ronen I. Brafman,et al.  UCP-Networks: A Directed Graphical Representation of Conditional Utilities , 2001, UAI.

[6]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  INTERDEPENDENCE AND ADDITIVITY IN MULTIVARIATE, UNIDIMENSIONAL EXPECTED UTILITY TIHEORY* , 1967 .

[7]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Minimax regret based elicitation of generalized additive utilities , 2007, UAI.

[8]  Gabriella Pigozzi,et al.  Preferences in artificial intelligence , 2016, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[9]  Iztok Fister,et al.  Planning the sports training sessions with the bat algorithm , 2015, Neurocomputing.

[10]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Constraint-based optimization and utility elicitation using the minimax decision criterion , 2006, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Andrea Passerini,et al.  Coactive Critiquing: Elicitation of Preferences and Features , 2016, AAAI.

[12]  Alan Fern,et al.  Coactive Learning for Locally Optimal Problem Solving , 2014, AAAI.

[13]  Andrea Passerini,et al.  Constructive Preference Elicitation by Setwise Max-Margin Learning , 2016, IJCAI.

[14]  Peter Auer,et al.  Finite-time Analysis of the Multiarmed Bandit Problem , 2002, Machine Learning.

[15]  R. Mayer,et al.  Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning , 2003 .

[16]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Elicitation of Factored Utilities , 2008, AI Mag..

[17]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Local Utility Elicitation in GAI Models , 2005, UAI.

[18]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[19]  Alan A. Stocker,et al.  Human Decision-Making under Limited Time , 2016, NIPS.

[20]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Online learning to diversify from implicit feedback , 2012, KDD.

[21]  Paolo Dragone Constructive Layout Synthesis via Coactive Learning , 2016 .

[22]  Patrice Perny,et al.  GAI Networks for Utility Elicitation , 2004, KR.

[23]  F. B. Vernadat,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1994 .

[24]  Tsuyoshi Murata,et al.  {m , 1934, ACML.