Multi-Attribute Decision Making using Weighted Description Logics

We introduce a framework based on Description Logics, which can be used to encode and solve decision problems in terms of combining inference services in DL and utility theory to represent preferences of the agent. The novelty of the approach is that we consider ABoxes as alternatives and weighted concept and role assertions as preferences in terms of possible outcomes. We discuss a relevant use case to show the benefits of the approach from the decision theory point of view

Multi-attribute decision making with weighted description logics

We introduce a decision-theoretic framework based on Description Logics (DLs), which can be used to encode and solve single stage multi-attribute decision problems. In particular, we consider the background knowledge as a DL knowledge base where each attribute is represented by a concept, weighted by a utility value which is asserted by the user. This yields a compact representation of preferences over attributes. Moreover, we represent choices as knowledge base individuals, and induce a ranking via the aggregation of attributes that they satisfy. We discuss the benefits of the approach from a decision theory point of view. Furthermore, we introduce an implementation of the framework as a Protégé plugin called uDecide. The plugin takes as input an ontology as background knowledge, and returns the choices consistent with the user’s (the knowledge base) preferences. We describe a use case with data from DBpedia. We also provide empirical results for its performance in the size of the ontology using the reasoner Konclude

CP-nets: A Tool for Representing and Reasoning withConditional Ceteris Paribus Preference Statements

Information about user preferences plays a key role in automated decision making. In many domains it is desirable to assess such preferences in a qualitative rather than quantitative way. In this paper, we propose a qualitative graphical representation of preferences that reflects conditional dependence and independence of preference statements under a ceteris paribus (all else being equal) interpretation. Such a representation is often compact and arguably quite natural in many circumstances. We provide a formal semantics for this model, and describe how the structure of the network can be exploited in several inference tasks, such as determining whether one outcome dominates (is preferred to) another, ordering a set outcomes according to the preference relation, and constructing the best outcome subject to available evidence