Utility functions for ceteris paribus preferences

Computational Intelligence

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 158-217

  Mcgeachie, Michael ^a   Doyle, Jon ^b  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b North Carolina State University   (United States)

Author keywords

Ceteris paribus preferences; Qualitative decision theory; Rationality

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; CONSTRAINT THEORY; DECISION MAKING; FORMAL LOGIC; FUNCTIONS; PROBABILITY;

CETERIS PARIBUS PREFERENCES; QUALITATIVE DECISION THEORY; RATIONALITY; UTILITY FUNCTIONS;

DECISION THEORY;

EID: 2442539195     PISSN: 08247935     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0824-7935.2004.00235.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. ANDERSON, E., Z. BAI, C. BISCHOF, J. DEMMEL et. al. 1990. LAPACK: A portable linear algebra library for high-performance computers. In Proceedings of Supercomputing. Knoxville.
2. BACCHUS, F., and A. GROVE. 1995. Graphical models for preference and utility. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, San francisco, CA, pp. 3-19.
3. BACCHUS, F., and A. GROVE. 1996. Utility independence in a qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, pp. 542-552.
4. BOUTILIER, C. 1994. Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-94). Bonn, pp. 76-86.
5. BOUTILIER, C., F. BACCHUS, and R. L. BRAFMAN. 2001. Ucp-networks: A directed graphical representation of conditional utilities. In Proceedings of Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Seattle, pp. 55-64.
6. BOUTILIER, C., R. BRAFMAN, C. GEIB, and D. POOLE. 1997. A constraint-based approach to preference elicitation and decision making. In Working Papers of the AAA1 Spring Symposium on Qualitative Preferences in Deliberation and Practical Reasoning. Edited by J. Doyle and R. H. Thomason. AAAI, Menlo Park, CA, pp. 19-28.
7. BOUTILIER, C., R. I. BRAFMAN, H. H. HOOS, and D. POOLE. 1999. Reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. In Proceedings of Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 1999 (UAI-99).
8. BRAFMAN, R. I., and C. DOMSHLAK. 2002. Introducing variable importance tradeoffs into cp-nets. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-02). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA.
9. Chvátal, V 1983. In Linear Programming. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.
10. DOMSHLAK, C., and R. I. BRAFMAN. 2002. Cp-nets - reasoning and consistency testing. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-02). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, pp. 121-132.
11. D'OYLE, J., Y. SHOHAM, and M. P. WELLMAN. 1991. A logic of relative desire (preliminary report). In Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems. Edited by Z. Ras. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, pp. 16-31.
12. DOYLE, J., and R. H. THOMASON. 1999. Background to qualitative decision theory. AI Magazine, 20(2):55-68.
13. KEENEY, R., and H. RAIFFA. 1976. In Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley and Sons, New York.
14. LA MURA, P., and Y. SHOHAM. 1999. Expected utility networks. In Proceedings of Fifteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 366-373.
15. LANG, J., L. VAN DER TORRE, and E. WEYDERT. 2002. Utilitarian desires. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 5:329-363.
16. MCGEACHIE, M., and J. DOYLE. 2002. Efficient utility functions for ceteris paribus preferences. In AAAI Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Edmonton, Alberta.
17. SELMAN, B., H. J. LEVESQUE, and D. MITCHELL. 1992. A new method for solving hard satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Edited by P. Rosenbloom and P. Szolovits. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, pp. 440-446.
18. SHOHAM, Y. 1997. A mechanism for reasoning about utilities (and probabilities): Preliminary report. In Working Papers of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Qualitative Preferences in Deliberation and Practical Reasoning. Edited by J. Doyle and R. H. Thomason. AAAI, Menlo Park, CA, pp. 85-93.
19. TAN, S.-W., and J. PEARL. 1994a. Qualitative decision theory. In AAAI94. Menlo Park, CA. AAAI Press.
20. TAN, S.-W., and J. PEARL. 1994b. Specification and evaluation of preferences for planning under uncertainty. In KR94. Edited by J. Doyle, E. Sandewall, and P. Torasso. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, pp. 530-539.
21. VAN DER TORRE, L., and E. WEYDERT. 1998a. Goals, desires, utilities and preferences. In Proceedings of the ECAI'98 Workshop on Decision Theory meets Artificial Intelligence.
22. VAN DER TORRE, L., and E. WEYDERT. 1998b. Goals, desires, utilities and preferences. In Proceedings of the ECAI'98 Workshop on Decision Theory meets Artificial Intelligence.
23. VAN DER TORRE, L., and E. WEYDERT. 2001. Parameters for utilitarian desires in a qualitative decision theory. Apllied Intelligence, 14:285-301.
24. WELLMAN, M., and J. DOYLE. 1991. Preferential semantics for goals. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Edited by T. Dean and K. McKeown. AAAI Press. Menlo Park, CA. pp. 698-703.
25. WELLMAN, M. P. 1990. Fundamental concepts of qualitative probabilistic networks. Artificial Intelligence, 44:257-303.