1. Designing Example Critiquing Interaction Boi Faltings Pearl Pu Marc Torrens Paolo Viappiani IUI 2004, Madeira, Portugal – Wed Jan 14, 2004 LIAHCI

2. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction2 Outline Introduction Stimulating expression of preferences Guaranteeing optimal solutions Conclusion

3. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction3 Motivation Many real word applications require people to select a most preferred outcome from a large set of possibilities (electronic catalogs) Users are usually unable to correctly state their preferences up front People are greatly helped by seeing examples of actual solutions   example critiquing

4. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction4 Mixed Initiative Interaction initial preference the system shows K solutions The user critiques the solutions stating a new preference The user picks the final choice

5. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction5 An implementation: reality user critiques existing solutions trade-off between different criteria

6. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction6 What to show? Standard approach  show the best solutions  assumption: user model is complete and accurate Does not in general stimulate new preferences

7. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction7 New approach Display_set = stimulate_set + optimal_set

8. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction8 What to show? Stimulate set = solutions that  make the user aware of attributes diversity  have high probability to become optimal if new preferences are stated Optimal set = solutions that  are optimal given the current preferences

9. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction9 Outline Introduction Stimulating expression of preferences Guaranteeing optimal solutions Conclusion

10. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction10 Stimulating new preferences Pareto optimality  general concept  does not involve weights Dominated solution can become Pareto optimal if new preferences are stated  show solutions that have higher probability of becoming Pareto optimal

11. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction11 Dominance relation and Pareto optimality 3 6 3 9 69 Penalty table, 2 preferences s1s1 s2s2 s3s3 s4s4 s5s5 S 1 and S 2 are Pareto optimal S 3 is dominated by S 1 and S 2 S 4 is dominated by S 1 S 5 is dominated by S 1, S 2, S 3. P1 P2

12. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction12 Pareto Optimal Filters Estimate the probability that a dominated solution can become Pareto optimal when new preferences are stated Different Pareto-filters:  counting filter  attribute filter  probabilistic filter

13. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction13 Counting filter We count the number of dominators S 1 and S 2 are currently “optimal” S 4 more promising than S 3 and S 5 Counting Filter: number of Dominators

14. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction14 A new preference is added New column with penalties S 4 becomes Pareto optimal even if the new penalty (0.6) is worse than for S 3 (0.5) and S 5 (0.4) The counting filter predict that S 4 has better chances to become P.O. when a new preference is added.

15. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction15 Hasse diagrams 12 34 5 User Model={p 1,p 2 } Pareto Optimal User Model={p 1,p 2, p 3 } 12 3 4 5 Adding preferences: Pareto optimal set grows, dominance relation becomes sparse

16. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction16 Attribute filter Solution: n attributes: A 1,..,A n  D 1,..,D n domains for A 1,..,A n  a solution is a complete assignment Preferences modeled as penalty functions defined on attribute domains Look at the attribute space  if two values are the same, any penalty function defined on these values will be the same

17. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction17 Attribute filter: motivation S 2 and S 3 are both dominated by S 1 If we add new preference  on Location  if North is preferred S 2 will be Pareto Optimal  on Transport  if Tramway is preferred to Bus then S 2 will be P.O.  S3 will always be dominated!! Preferences: on price (to minimize), on M 2 (to maximize)

18. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction18 Attribute Filter For the new preference, dominated solution s must have lower penalty than all dominant solutions  for discrete domain, attribute values must be different  for continuous domains, consider extreme values

19. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction19 Probabilistic filter Directly estimate probability of becoming P.O. The bigger the difference on a specific attribute, the more likely the penalties will be different 1 1 domain penalty domain

20. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction20 Experiments Database of actual accommodation offers (room for rent, studios, apartments) Random datasets 11 attributes of which  4 continuous (price, duration, square meters, distance to university)  7 discrete (kitchen, kitchen type, bathroom, public transportation,..)

21. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction21 Results (accommodation dataset)

22. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction22 Results (random dataset) Average fraction of correct predictions number of preferences known

23. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction23 Outline Introduction Stimulating expression of preferences Guaranteeing optimal solutions Conclusion

24. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction24 Modelling True preference model P* (unknown)  P*={p* 1, p* 2,.., p* k }  s t : target solution Estimated through a model P  P={p 1,..,p k }  p i are built-in standard penalty functions  assume limited difference between p and p* Penalty functions  p i (a k ): d k -> R  write p i (s) instead of p i (a j (s))

25. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction25 Selecting displayed solutions Dominance filters Utilitarian filters Egalitarian filters

26. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction26 Optimal Set Filters Properties We want.. 1. To show a limited number of solutions  each filter selects k solutions to display 2. To ensure that a Pareto-optimal solution in D is Pareto-optimal in S  each filter satisfies this  dominance filter (by definition), Utilitarian and Egalitarian (theorem)

27. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction27 Optimal Set Filters Properties 3. To include target solutions  only if target solution is included the user can choose it!  probability to include the target solution in D depends on filter. Assumption (1-ε)p i ≤ p i * ≤ (1+ε)p i

28. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction28 Dominance filter Display k solutions that are not dominated by another one

29. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction29 Dominance filter: target solution Plot of probability of target solution being included in D, as function of number of preferences  |P|=3,..,12  K=30, 60  m=778, 6444

30. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction30 Utilitarian filter We minimize the un-weighted sum of penalties Efficiently computed by “branch & bound”

31. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction31 Utilitarian filter: probability to find target solution Does not depend on m, the number of total solutions (proved analytically) Better than dominator filter

32. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction32 Egalitarian filter Minimize F(s)  In case of equality, use lexicographic order: (0.4, 0.2) preferred to (0.4, 0.4) Target solution inclusion probability similar to that of the Utilitarian filter.

33. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction33 Robustness against violated assumption Fraction of PO solutions shown within the best k ones Egalitarian, utilitarian filter

34. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction34 Outline Introduction Stimulating expression of preferences Guaranteeing optimal solutions Conclusion

35. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction35 Conclusion Optimal and stimulation set Example critiquing on firmer mathematical ground Suggestions to system developer How to compensate an incomplete/inaccurate user model Experimental evaluation on real and random problems

36. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction36 Questions

37. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction37

38. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction38 Counting filter works already fairly well Attribute filter works very well when only 1 or 2 preferences are missing, but generally probabilistic is the best Impact of correlation between attributes can affect performance Pareto Filters: conclusions Complexity CountingAttributeProbabilisticRandom

39. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction39 Attribute filter/2 Continuous domains: best values are the extremes  assumption: preference functions are monotonic 1 OR domain penalty

40. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction40 1 θθ 1 domain a i (o 1 ) a i (o 2 ) 1 θ domain a i (o 1 ) a i (o 2 ) m domain a i (o 1 ) a i (o 2 )

41. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction41 θ θ 1 domain a i (o) gigi lili sisi 1 θ domain a i (o)lili domain a i (o) lili 1 a i (o 1 )-t θ-t m1m1 m2m2 a i (o) θ +t

42. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction42

43. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction43 Theorem Given a set of m solutions S={s 1,..,s m } and a set of penalties {p 1,..,p d } Let S’ be the best k solutions according to the utilitarian filter A solution s in S’ not dominated by any other of S’, is Pareto Optimal in S.

44. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction44 Simplified Apartment Domain A very simple example:  A={Location, Rent, Rooms}  D Location ={Centre, North, South, East, West}  D Rent ={x|x integer x>0}  D Rooms ={1,2,3..} Preferences: location should be centre and rent less than 500

45. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction45 Penalty functions P 1 :=  if (Location==centre) then 0 else 1 P 2 :=  If (Rent > 500) then K*(Rent-500)  Else 0

46. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction46 Electronic catalogues K attributes: A 1,..,A k  D 1,..,D k domains for A 1,..,A k  a solution is a complete assignment  write a j (s), value of S for attribute j Solution set S  is a subset of D 1 x D 2 x D 3 x D 4 x... Preferences modeled as penalty functions defined on attribute domains

47. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction47 Counting filter* The Dominator set for a solution s 1, is the subset of S of solution that dominates s 1. The counting filter orders solutions on the size of the dominator set. S d (s 1 ) s 1

48. Wed Jan 14, 2004Designing Example Critiquing Interaction48 Probabilistic filter Directly estimate probability of becoming P.O. The bigger the difference on a specific attribute, the more likely the penalties will be different 1 domain penalty