Paper detail

Representing and Reasoning with Qualitative Preferences for Compositional Systems

Many applications, e.g., Web service composition, complex system design, team formation, etc., rely on methods for identifying collections of objects or entities satisfying some functional requirement. Among the collections that satisfy the functional requirement, it is often necessary to identify one or more collections that are optimal with respect to user preferences over a set of attributes that describe the non-functional properties of the collection. We develop a formalism that lets users express the relative importance among attributes and qualitative preferences over the valuations of each attribute. We define a dominance relation that allows us to compare collections of objects in terms of preferences over attributes of the objects that make up the collection. We establish some key properties of the dominance relation. In particular, we show that the dominance relation is a strict partial order when the intra-attribute preference relations are strict partial orders and the relative importance preference relation is an interval order. We provide algorithms that use this dominance relation to identify the set of most preferred collections. We show that under certain conditions, the algorithms are guaranteed to return only (sound), all (complete), or at least one (weakly complete) of the most preferred collections. We present results of simulation experiments comparing the proposed algorithms with respect to (a) the quality of solutions (number of most preferred solutions) produced by the algorithms, and (b) their performance and efficiency. We also explore some interesting conjectures suggested by the results of our experiments that relate the properties of the user preferences, the dominance relation, and the algorithms.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.