Reasoning with qualitative preferences and cardinalities using generalized circumscription
Pages 560 - 570
Abstract
The topic of preference modeling has recently attracted the interest of a number of sub-disciplines in artificial intelligence such as the nonmonotonic reasoning and action and change communities. The approach in these communities focuses on qualitative preferences and preference models which provide more natural representations from a commonsense perspective. In this paper, we show how generalized circumscription can be used as a highly expressive framework for qualitative preference modeling. Generalized circumscription proposed by Lifschitz allows for predicates (and thus formulas) to be minimized relative to arbitrary pre-orders (reflexive and transitive). Although it has received little attention, we show how it may be used to model and reason about elaborate qualitative preference relations. One of the perceived weaknesses with any type of circumscription is the 2nd-order nature of the representation. The paper shows how a large variety of preference theories represented using generalized circumscription can in fact be reduced to logically equivalent first-order theories in a constructive way. Finally, we also show how preference relations represented using general circumscription can be extended with cardinality constraints and when these extensions can also be reduced to logically equivalent first-order theories.
References
[1]
Abiteboul, S.; Hull, R.; and Vianu, V. 1996. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
[2]
Ackermann, W. 1935. Untersuchungen über das eliminationsproblem der mathematischen logik. Mathematische Annalen 110:390-413.
[3]
Brafman, R. I.; Domshlak, C.; Shimony, S. E.; and Silver, Y. 2005. TCP-nets for preferences over sets. In Veloso, M. M., and Kambhampati, S., eds., Proceedings of the 20th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and the 17th Conf. Innovative Applications.
[4]
Brewka, G., and Eiter, T. 2000. Prioritizing default logic. In Intellectics and Computational Logic - Papers in honor of Wolfgang Bibel. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[5]
Brewka, G.; Niemelä, I.; and Syrjänen, T. 2004. Logic programs with ordered disjunction. Computational Intelligence 20(2):335-357.
[6]
Brewka, G.; Niemelä, I.; and Truszczynski, M. 2005. Prioritized component systems. In Veloso, M. M., and Kambhampati, S., eds., Proceedings of the 20th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and the 17th Conf. Innovative Applications, 596-601.
[7]
Brewka, G. 2006. Preferences in answer set programming. In Marín, R.; Onaindia, E.; Bugarín, A.; and Santos, J., eds., CAEPIA'2005, volume 4177 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1-10.
[8]
Chomicki, J., and Zhang, X. 2008. Profiling sets for preference querying. In Proc. International Workshop on Logic in Databases (LID). To appear.
[9]
Conradie, W. 2006. On the strength and scope of DLS. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 16(3-4):279-296.
[10]
Delgrande, J., and Schaub, T. 2000. Expressing preferences in default logic. Artificial Intelligence 123(1-2):41-87.
[11]
desJardins, M., and Wagstaff, K. 2005. DD-PREF: A language for expressing preferences over sets. In Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 620-626.
[12]
Doherty, P.; Lukaszewicz, W.; and Szałas, A. 1996. A reduction result for circumscribed semi-Horn formulas. Fundamenta Informaticae 28(3-4):261-271.
[13]
Doherty, P.; Łukaszewicz, W.; and Szałas, A. 1997. Computing circumscription revisited. Journal of Automated Reasoning 18(3):297-336.
[14]
Doherty, P.; Łukaszewicz, W.; and Szałas, A. 1998. General domain circumscription and its effective reductions. Fundamenta Informaticae 36(1):23-55.
[15]
Doyle, J. 2004. Prospects for preferences. Computational Intelligence 20(2):111-136.
[16]
Ebbinghaus, H.-D., and Flum, J. 1995. Finite Model Theory. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
[17]
Gabbay, D.; Schmidt, R.; and Szałas, A. 2008. Second-Order Quantifier Elimination. Foundations, Computational Aspects and Applications, volume 12 of Studies in Logic. College Publications.
[18]
Guha, S.; Gunopulos, D.; Koudas, N.; Srivastava, D.; and Vlachos, M. 2003. Efficient approximation of optimization queries under parametric aggregation constraints. In Proceedings of the 29th VLDB Conference, 778-789.
[19]
Gustafsson, J. 1996. An implementation and optimization of an algorithm for reducing formulas in second-order logic. Technical Report LiTH-MAT-R-96-04, http://www.ida.liu.se/labs/kplab/projects/dls/.
[20]
Junker, U.; Delgrande, J.; Doyle, J.; Rossi, F.; and Schaub, T. 2004. Special issue on preferences. Computational Inteligence 20(2).
[21]
Lifschitz, V. 1984. Some results on circumscription. In Proceedings of the First AAAI NonMonotonic Reasoning Workshop, 151-164.
[22]
Lifschitz, V. 1991. Circumscription. In Gabbay, D. M.; Hogger, C. J.; and Robinson, J. A., eds., Handbook of Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume 3, 297-352. Oxford University Press.
[23]
Łukaszewicz, W. 1990. Non-Monotonic Reasoning - Formalization of Commonsense Reasoning. Ellis Horwood Series in Artificial Intelligence. Ellis Horwood.
[24]
Magnusson, M. 2005. Implementation of DLS*. http://www.ida.liu.se/labs/kplab/projects/dlsstar/.
[25]
McCarthy, J. 1980. Circumscription: A form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence J. 13:27-39.
[26]
McCarthy, J. 1986. Applications of circumscription to formalizing commonsense knowledge. Artificial Intelligence J. 28:89-116.
[27]
Nonnengart, A., and Szałas, A. 1998. A fixpoint approach to second-order quantifier elimination with applications to correspondence theory. In Orłowska, E., ed., Logic at Work: Essays Dedicated to the Memory of Helena Rasiowa, 307-328. Springer Physica-Verlag.
[28]
Satoh, K. 1996. Disambiguation by prioritized circumscription. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Computational Linguistics, 901-906. Morristown, NJ, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
[29]
Wakaki, T.; Satoh, K.; and Nitta, K. 1997. Reasoning about dynamic preferences in circumscriptive theory by logic programming. Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence 1(2):121-129.
- Reasoning with qualitative preferences and cardinalities using generalized circumscription
Recommendations
Two alternatives for handling preferences in qualitative choice logic
Reasoning about preferences is a major issue in many decision making problems. Recently, a new logic for handling preferences, called qualitative choice logic (QCL), was presented. This logic adds to classical propositional logic a new connective, ...
Paraconsistent Circumscription: First-Order Case
ISMVL '95: Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Multiple-Valued LogicAbstract: In this paper we describe paraconsistent circumscription by application of predicate circumscription in a paraconsistent logic. In addition to circumscribe the predicates, we also circumscribe the inconsistency. Paraconsistent circumscription ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Publisher
AAAI Press
Publication History
Published: 16 September 2008
Qualifiers
- Article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 10 Feb 2025