Decision with uncertainties, feasibilities, and utilities: Towards a unified algebraic framework

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

Volumn 141, Issue , 2006, Pages 427-431

  Pralet, Cédric ^a,c   Verfaillie, Gérard ^b   Schiex, Thomas ^c  

^a LAAS CNRS   (France)

^b ONERA   (France)

^c CEMAGREF   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BOOLEAN FUNCTIONS; CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION PROBLEMS; DECISION MAKING; MARKOV PROCESSES; PROBLEM SOLVING; TOYS;

ALGEBRAIC FRAMEWORK; BAYESIA N NETWORKS; CONSTRAINT-SATISFACTION PROBLEMS; DECISION MAKING WITH UNCERTAINTY; DECISION PROBLEMS; DECISION WITH UNCERTAINTIES; PREFERENCE UNCERTAINTY; QUANTIFIED BOOLEAN FORMULAS; SEQUENTIAL DECISION MAKING; SPECIFIC PROPERTIES;

BAYESIAN NETWORKS;

EID: 84857696138     PISSN: 09226389     EISSN: 18798314     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. F. Bacchus and A. Grove, 'Graphical Models for Preference and Utility', in Proc. of UAI, (1995).
2. S. Bistarelli, U. Montanari, F. Rossi, T. Schiex, G. Verfaillie, and H. Fargier, 'Semiring-Based CSPs and Valued CSPs: Frameworks, Properties and Comparison', Constraints, 4(3), 199-240, (1999).
3. L. Bordeaux and E. Monfroy, 'Beyond NP: Arc-consistency for Quantified Constraints', in Proc. of the 8th International CP conference, Ithaca, New York, USA, (2002). 6 This work was partially conducted within the EU IP COGNIRON ("The Cognitive Companion") funded by the European Commission Division FP6-IST Future and Emerging Technologies under Contract FP6-002020.
4. C. Boutilier, R. Brafman, H. Hoos, and D. Poole, 'Reasoning With Conditional Ceteris Paribus Preference Statements', in Proc. of the 15th UAI Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, (1999).
5. C. Boutilier, R. Dearden, and M. Goldszmidt, 'Stochastic Dynamic Programming with Factored Representations', Artificial Intelligence, 121(1-2), 49-107, (2000).
6. Craig Boutilier, Thomas Dean, and Steve Hanks, 'Decision-theoretic planning: Structural assumptions and computational leverage', Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 11, 1-94, (1999).
7. R. Chellappa and A. Jain. Markov random fields: Theory and applications. Academic Press, 1993.
8. F.C. Chu and J.Y. Halpern, 'Great expectations. part i: On the customizability of generalized expected utility', in Proc. of IJCAI, pp. 291-296, Acapulco, Mexico, (2003).
9. M. Cooper and T. Schiex, 'Arc Consistency for Soft Constraints', Artificial Intelligence, 154(1-2), 199-227, (2004).
10. R. Dechter, 'Bucket Elimination: A Unifying Framework for Reasoning', Artificial Intelligence, 113(1-2), 41-85, (1999).
11. D. Dubois and H. Prade. Possibility Theory: An Approach to Computerized Processing of Uncertainty. Plenum Press, 1988.
12. H. Fargier, J. Lang, and T. Schiex, 'Mixed Constraint Satisfaction: a Framework for Decision Problems under Incomplete Knowledge', in Proc. of the 13th AAAI, pp. 175-180, Portland, USA, (1996).
13. H. Fargier and P. Perny, 'Qualitative Models for Decision Under Uncertainty without the Commensurability Assumption', in Proc. of UAI, (1999).
14. Friedman N., Halpern J., 'Plausibility Measures : A User's Guide', in Proc. of UAI, Montral, Canada, p. 175-184, (1995).
15. M. Frydenberg, 'The Chain Graph Markov Property', Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 17, 333-353, (1990).
16. M. Ghallab, D. Nau, and P. Traverso, Automated Planning: Theory and Practice, Morgan Kaufmann, 2004.
17. J.Y. Halpern, 'Conditional plausibility measures and Bayesian networks', JAIR, 14, 359-389, (2001).
18. R. Howard and J. Matheson, 'Influence Diagrams', in Readings on the Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis, 721-762, Strategic Decisions Group, Menlo Park, CA, USA, (1984).
19. J. Kolhas, Information Algebras: Generic Structures for Inference, Springer, 2003.
20. J. Larrosa and T. Schiex., 'In the quest of the best form of local consistency for weighted CSP', in Proc. of IJCAI, Acapulco, Mexico, (2003).
21. M. Littman, S. Majercik, and T. Pitassi, 'Stochastic Boolean Satisfiability', Journal of Automated Reasoning, 27(3), 251-296, (2001).
22. A. Mackworth, 'Consistency in Networks of Relations', Artificial Intelligence, 8(1), 99-118, (1977).
23. G. Monahan, 'A Survey of Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes: Theory, Models, and Algorithms', Management Science, 28(1), 1-16, (1982).
24. P. Ndilikilikesha, 'Potential Influence Diagrams', International Journal of Approximated Reasoning,3, 251-285, (1994).
25. J. Pearl, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.
26. P. Perny, O. Spanjaard, and P. Weng, 'Algebraic Markov Decision Processes', in 19th IJCAI Proc., Edinburgh, Scotland, (2005).
27. C. Pralet, G. Verfaillie, and T. Schiex. An Algebraic Graphical Model for Decision with Uncertainties, Feasibilities, and Utilities. LAASCNRS Report, http://www.laas.fr/~cpralet/praletverfschiex.ps, 2005.
28. M. Puterman, Markov Decision Processes, Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming, John Wiley & Sons, 1994.
29. R. Sabbadin, 'A Possibilistic Model for Qualitative Sequential Decision Problems under Uncertainty in Partially Observable Environments', in Proc. of the 15th UAI Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, (1999).
30. G. Shafer, A mathematical theory of evidence, Princeton University Press, 1976.
31. P. Shenoy, 'Valuation-based Systems for Discrete Optimization', Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 6, 385-400, (1991).
32. P.P. Shenoy, 'Valuation network representation and solution of asymmetric decision problems', European Journal of Operational Research, 121, 579-608, (2000).
33. W. Spohn, 'A general non-probabilistic theory of inductive reasoning', in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 4, 149-158, North-Holland, Amsterdam, (1990).
34. T. Walsh, 'Stochastic Constraint Programming', in Proc. of the 15th ECAI Conference, Lyon, France, (2002).