Constructive Preference Elicitation over Hybrid Combinatorial Spaces

Preference elicitation is the task of suggesting a highly preferred configuration to a decision maker. The preferences are typically learned by querying the user for choice feedback over pairs or sets of objects. In its constructive variant, new objects are synthesized "from scratch" by maximizing an estimate of the user utility over a combinatorial (possibly infinite) space of candidates. In the constructive setting, most existing elicitation techniques fail because they rely on exhaustive enumeration of the candidates. A previous solution explicitly designed for constructive tasks comes with no formal performance guarantees, and can be very expensive in (or unapplicable to) problems with non-Boolean attributes. We propose the Choice Perceptron, a Perceptron-like algorithm for learning user preferences from set-wise choice feedback over constructive domains and hybrid Boolean-numeric feature spaces. We provide a theoretical analysis on the attained regret that holds for a large class of query selection strategies, and devise a heuristic strategy that aims at optimizing the regret in practice. Finally, we demonstrate its effectiveness by empirical evaluation against existing competitors on constructive scenarios of increasing complexity.Comment: AAAI 2018, computing methodologies, machine learning, learning paradigms, supervised learning, structured output

Gradient-based Optimization for Bayesian Preference Elicitation

Effective techniques for eliciting user preferences have taken on added importance as recommender systems (RSs) become increasingly interactive and conversational. A common and conceptually appealing Bayesian criterion for selecting queries is expected value of information (EVOI). Unfortunately, it is computationally prohibitive to construct queries with maximum EVOI in RSs with large item spaces. We tackle this issue by introducing a continuous formulation of EVOI as a differentiable network that can be optimized using gradient methods available in modern machine learning (ML) computational frameworks (e.g., TensorFlow, PyTorch). We exploit this to develop a novel, scalable Monte Carlo method for EVOI optimization, which is more scalable for large item spaces than methods requiring explicit enumeration of items. While we emphasize the use of this approach for pairwise (or k-wise) comparisons of items, we also demonstrate how our method can be adapted to queries involving subsets of item attributes or "partial items," which are often more cognitively manageable for users. Experiments show that our gradient-based EVOI technique achieves state-of-the-art performance across several domains while scaling to large item spaces.Comment: To appear in the Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-20

Extending the combined use of scenarios and multi-criteria decision analysis for evaluating the robustness of strategic options

Deep uncertainty exists when there is disagreement on how to model inter-relationships between variables in the external/controllable and internal/controllable environment; how to specify probability distributions to represent threats; and/or how to value various consequences. The evaluation of strategic options under deep uncertainty involves structuring the decision problem, specifying options to address that problem, and assessing which options appear to consistently perform well by achieving desirable levels of performance across a range of futures. The integrated use of scenarios and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) provides a framework for managing these issues, and is an area of growing interest. This thesis aims to explore such integrated use, suggesting a new method for combining MCDA and scenario planning, and to test such proposal through a multi-method research strategy involving case study, behavioural experiment and simulation. The proposal reflects the three key areas of confluence of scenarios and MCDA in the decision making process. The first is based on systematic generation of a larger scenario set, focused on extreme outcomes, for defining the boundaries of the decision problem. The second proposal is based on providing less scenario detail than the traditional narrative, in favour of explicitly considering how uncertainties affect positive and negative outcomes on key objectives. This backward logic seeks to better address the challenge of estimating the consequences of each option and the trade-offs involved. Finally, it is proposed that option selection be based on a concern for robustness through cost-equivalent regret. The empirical findings reflect that the key benefit of integration appears to be a mechanism to improve the efficiency of elicitation and the robustness of options. However, effective application of scenarios and MCDA requires awareness of the desired degree of accuracy required and risk attitude of decision makers

Computer Science and Technology Series : XV Argentine Congress of Computer Science. Selected papers

CACIC'09 was the fifteenth Congress in the CACIC series. It was organized by the School of Engineering of the National University of Jujuy. The Congress included 9 Workshops with 130 accepted papers, 1 main Conference, 4 invited tutorials, different meetings related with Computer Science Education (Professors, PhD students, Curricula) and an International School with 5 courses. CACIC 2009 was organized following the traditional Congress format, with 9 Workshops covering a diversity of dimensions of Computer Science Research. Each topic was supervised by a committee of three chairs of different Universities. The call for papers attracted a total of 267 submissions. An average of 2.7 review reports were collected for each paper, for a grand total of 720 review reports that involved about 300 different reviewers. A total of 130 full papers were accepted and 20 of them were selected for this book.Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Finding optimal alternatives based on efficient comparative preference inference

Choosing the right or the best option is often a demanding and challenging task for the user (e.g., a customer in an online retailer) when there are many available alternatives. In fact, the user rarely knows which offering will provide the highest value. To reduce the complexity of the choice process, automated recommender systems generate personalized recommendations. These recommendations take into account the preferences collected from the user in an explicit (e.g., letting users express their opinion about items) or implicit (e.g., studying some behavioral features) way. Such systems are widespread; research indicates that they increase the customers' satisfaction and lead to higher sales. Preference handling is one of the core issues in the design of every recommender system. This kind of system often aims at guiding users in a personalized way to interesting or useful options in a large space of possible options. Therefore, it is important for them to catch and model the user's preferences as accurately as possible. In this thesis, we develop a comparative preference-based user model to represent the user's preferences in conversational recommender systems. This type of user model allows the recommender system to capture several preference nuances from the user's feedback. We show that, when applied to conversational recommender systems, the comparative preference-based model is able to guide the user towards the best option while the system is interacting with her. We empirically test and validate the suitability and the practical computational aspects of the comparative preference-based user model and the related preference relations by comparing them to a sum of weights-based user model and the related preference relations. Product configuration, scheduling a meeting and the construction of autonomous agents are among several artificial intelligence tasks that involve a process of constrained optimization, that is, optimization of behavior or options subject to given constraints with regards to a set of preferences. When solving a constrained optimization problem, pruning techniques, such as the branch and bound technique, point at directing the search towards the best assignments, thus allowing the bounding functions to prune more branches in the search tree. Several constrained optimization problems may exhibit dominance relations. These dominance relations can be particularly useful in constrained optimization problems as they can instigate new ways (rules) of pruning non optimal solutions. Such pruning methods can achieve dramatic reductions in the search space while looking for optimal solutions. A number of constrained optimization problems can model the user's preferences using the comparative preferences. In this thesis, we develop a set of pruning rules used in the branch and bound technique to efficiently solve this kind of optimization problem. More specifically, we show how to generate newly defined pruning rules from a dominance algorithm that refers to a set of comparative preferences. These rules include pruning approaches (and combinations of them) which can drastically prune the search space. They mainly reduce the number of (expensive) pairwise comparisons performed during the search while guiding constrained optimization algorithms to find optimal solutions. Our experimental results show that the pruning rules that we have developed and their different combinations have varying impact on the performance of the branch and bound technique

Optimization for Decision Making II

In the current context of the electronic governance of society, both administrations and citizens are demanding the greater participation of all the actors involved in the decision-making process relative to the governance of society. This book presents collective works published in the recent Special Issue (SI) entitled “Optimization for Decision Making II”. These works give an appropriate response to the new challenges raised, the decision-making process can be done by applying different methods and tools, as well as using different objectives. In real-life problems, the formulation of decision-making problems and the application of optimization techniques to support decisions are particularly complex and a wide range of optimization techniques and methodologies are used to minimize risks, improve quality in making decisions or, in general, to solve problems. In addition, a sensitivity or robustness analysis should be done to validate/analyze the influence of uncertainty regarding decision-making. This book brings together a collection of inter-/multi-disciplinary works applied to the optimization of decision making in a coherent manner

Design Space Exploration for Building Automation Systems

In the building automation domain, there are gaps among various tasks related to design engineering. As a result created system designs must be adapted to the given requirements on system functionality, which is related to increased costs and engineering effort than planned. For this reason standards are prepared to enable a coordination among these tasks by providing guidelines and unified artifacts for the design. Moreover, a huge variety of prefabricated devices offered from different manufacturers on the market for building automation that realize building automation functions by preprogrammed software components. Current methods for design creation do not consider this variety and design solution is limited to product lines of a few manufacturers and expertise of system integrators. Correspondingly, this results in design solutions of a limited quality. Thus, a great optimization potential of the quality of design solutions and coordination of tasks related to design engineering arises. For given design requirements, the existence of a high number of devices that realize required functions leads to a combinatorial explosion of design alternatives at different price and quality levels. Finding optimal design alternatives is a hard problem to which a new solution method is proposed based on heuristical approaches. By integrating problem specific knowledge into algorithms based on heuristics, a promisingly high optimization performance is achieved. Further, optimization algorithms are conceived to consider a set of flexibly defined quality criteria specified by users and achieve system design solutions of high quality. In order to realize this idea, optimization algorithms are proposed in this thesis based on goal-oriented operations that achieve a balanced convergence and exploration behavior for a search in the design space applied in different strategies. Further, a component model is proposed that enables a seamless integration of design engineering tasks according to the related standards and application of optimization algorithms.:1 Introduction 17 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1.2 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1.3 Goals and Use of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1.4 Solution Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1.5 Organization of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2 Design Creation for Building Automation Systems 25 2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.2 Engineering of Building Automation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.3 Network Protocols of Building Automation Systems . . . . . . . 33 2.4 Existing Solutions for Design Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2.5 The Device Interoperability Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.6 Guidelines for Planning of Room Automation Systems . . . . . . 38 2.7 Quality Requirements on BAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.8 Quality Requirements on Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.8.1 Quality Requirements Related to Project Planning . . . . 42 2.8.2 Quality Requirements Related to Project Implementation 43 2.9 Quality Requirements on Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.10 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3 The Design Creation Task 47 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 3.2 System Design Composition Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3.2.1 Abstract and Detailed Design Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3.2.2 Mapping Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3.3 Formulation of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.3.1 Problem properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3.3.2 Requirements on Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4 Solution Methods for Design Generation and Optimization 59 4.1 Combinatorial Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4.2 Metaheuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4.3 Examples for Metaheuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.3.1 Simulated Annealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.3.2 Tabu Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 4.3.3 Ant Colony Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.3.4 Evolutionary Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 4.4 Choice of the Solver Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4.5 Specialized Methods for Diversity Preservation . . . . . . . . . . 70 4.6 Approaches for Real World Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.6.1 Component-Based Mapping Problems . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.6.2 Network Design Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.6.3 Comparison of Solution Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 5 Automated Creation of Optimized Designs 79 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 5.2 Design Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 5.3 Component Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 5.3.1 Presumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5.3.2 Integration of Component Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5.4 Design Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5.4.1 Component Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 5.4.2 Generation Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 5.5 Design Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 5.5.1 Problems and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 5.5.2 Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 5.5.3 Application Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 5.6 Realization of the Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 5.6.1 Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 5.6.2 Individual Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 5.7 Automated Design Creation For A Building . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 5.7.1 Room Spanning Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 5.7.2 Flexible Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 5.7.3 Technology Spanning Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 5.7.4 Preferences for Mapping of Function Blocks to Devices . . 132 5.8 Further Uses and Applicability of the Approach . . . . . . . . . . 133 5.9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 6 Validation and Performance Analysis 137 6.1 Validation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 6.2 Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 6.3 Example Abstract Designs and Performance Tests . . . . . . . . 139 6.3.1 Criteria for Choosing Example Abstract Designs . . . . . 139 6.3.2 Example Abstract Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 6.3.3 Performance Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 6.3.4 Population Size P - Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 6.3.5 Cross-Over Probability pC - Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 157 6.3.6 Mutation Probability pM - Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 6.3.7 Discussion for Optimization Results and Example Designs 168 6.3.8 Resource Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 6.3.9 Parallelism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 6.4 Optimization Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 6.5 Framework Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 6.5.1 Components and Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 6.5.2 Workflow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 6.5.3 Optimization Control By Graphical User Interface . . . . 180 6.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 7 Conclusions 185 A Appendix of Designs 189 Bibliography 201 Index 21

Automated Markets and Trading Agents

Computer automation has the potential, just starting to be realized, of transforming the design and operation of markets, and the behaviors of agents trading in them. We discuss the possibilities for automating markets, presenting a broad conceptual framework covering resource allocation as well as enabling marketplace services such as search and transaction execution. One of the most intriguing opportunities is provided by markets implementing computationally sophisticated negotiation mechanisms, for example combinatorial auctions. An important theme that emerges from the literature is the centrality of design decisions about matching the domain of goods over which a mechanism operates to the domain over which agents have preferences. When the match is imperfect (as is almost inevitable), the market game induced by the mechanism is analytically intractable, and the literature provides an incomplete characterization of rational bidding policies. A review of the literature suggests that much of our existing knowledge comes from computational simulations, including controlled studies of abstract market designs (e.g., simultaneous ascending auctions), and research tournaments comparing agent strategies in a variety of market scenarios. An empirical game-theoretic methodology combines the advantages of simulation, agent-based modeling, and statistical and game-theoretic analysis.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/49510/1/ace_galleys.pd