Expressive Power and Succinctness of Propositional Languages for Preference Representation

Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference, KR 2004

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 203-212

  Coste Marquis, Sylvie ^a   Lang, Jérôme ^b   Liberatore, Paolo ^c   Marquis, Pierre ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ D'ARTOIS   (France)

^b IRIT   (France)

^c SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENCODINGS; EXPRESSIVE POWER; LOGICAL LANGUAGE; POLYNOMIAL SIZE; PREFERENCE RELATION; PREFERENCE REPRESENTATION; PREORDERS; PROPOSITIONAL LANGUAGE; REPRESENTATION LANGUAGES;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 85167436665     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (50)

1. Bacchus, F., and Grove, A. 1995. Graphical models for preference and utility. In Proc. of UAI'95, 3-10.
2. Benferhat, S.; Cayrol, C.; Dubois, D.; Lang, J.; and Prade, H. 1993. Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In Proc. of IJCAI'93, 640-645.
3. Benferhat, S.; Dubois, D.; Kaci, S.; and Prade, H. 2002. Bipolar representation and fusion of preferences in the possibilistic logic framework. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2002), 421-432. Morgan Kaufmann.
4. Bistarelli, S.; Fargier, H.; Montanari, U.; Rossi, F.; Schiex, T.; and Verfaillie, G. 1999. Semiring-based CSPs and valued CSPs: Frameworks, properties, and comparison. CONSTRAINTS: An International Journal 4(3):199-240.
5. Boutilier, C.; Bacchus, F.; and Brafman, R. 2001. UCP-networks: a directed graphical representation of conditional utilities. In Proc. of UAI'01, 56-64.
6. Boutilier, C.; Brafman, R.; Hoos, H.; and Poole, D. 1999. Reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus statements. In Proc. of UAI'99, 71-80.
7. Boutilier, C. 1994. Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In Proc. of KR'94, 75-86.
8. Brewka, G., and Eiter, T. 1999. Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs. Artificial Intelligence 109:297-356.
9. Brewka, G.; Benferhat, S.; and Berre, D. L. 2002. Qualitative choice logic. In Proc. of KR'02, 158-169.
10. Brewka, G. 1989. Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning. In Proc. of IJCAI'89, 1043-1048.
11. Brewka, G. 2002. Logic programming with ordered disjunction. In Proc. of AAAI'02, 100-105.
12. Cadoli, M.; Donini, F.; Liberatore, P.; and Schaerf, M. 1996. Comparing space efficiency of propositional knowledge representation formalisms. In Proc. of KR'96, 364-373.
13. Cadoli, M.; Donini, F. M.; Liberatore, P.; and Schaerf, M. 1999. The size of a revised knowledge base. Artificial Intelligence 115(1):25-64.
14. Cadoli, M.; Donini, F.; Liberatore, P.; and Schaerf, M. 2000. Space efficiency of propositional knowledge representation formalisms. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 13:1-31.
15. Cadoli, M.; Donini, F.; Liberatore, P.; and Schaerf, M. 2002. Preprocessing of intractable problems. Information and Computation 176(2):89-120.
16. Dalal, M. 1988. Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: preliminary report. In Proceedings of the seventh American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'88), 475-479.
17. Delgrande, J.; Schaub, T.; and Tompits, H. 2003. A framework for compiling preferences in logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3(2):129-187.
18. Domshlak, C., and Brafman, R. 2002. CP-nets: reasoning and consistency testing. In Proc. of KR'02, 121-132.
19. Doyle, J., and Wellman, M. P. 1991. Preferential semantics for goals. In Proc. of AAAI'91, 698-703.
20. Doyle, J.; Wellman, M. P.; and Shoham, Y. 1991. A logic of relative desire (preliminary report). In Proc. of ISMIS'91, 16-31.
21. Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F.; Lang, J.; and Schiex, T. 1994. Penalty logic and its link with Dempster-Shafer theory. In Proc. of UAI'94, 204-211. Morgan Kaufmann.
22. Eiter, T., and Lukasiewicz, T. 2000. Complexity results for default reasoning from conditional knowledge bases. In Proc. of KR'00, 62-73.
23. Friedman, N., and Halpern, J. 1994. On the complexity of conditional logics. In Proc. of KR'94, 202-213.
24. Geffner, H. 1992. Default reasoning: causal and conditional theories. MIT Press.
25. Gogic, G.; Kautz, H.; Papadimitriou, C.; and Selman, B. 1995. The comparative linguistics of knowledge representation. In Proc. of IJCAI'95, 862-869.
26. Gonzales, C., and Perny, P. 2004. Gai networks for utility representation. In Proceedings of KR-2004 (this Volume).
27. Gottlob, G. 1995. Translating default logic into standard autoepistemic logic. Journal of the ACM 42:711-740.
28. Haddawy, P., and Hanks, S. 1992. Representations for decision theoretic planning: utility functions for deadline goals. In Proc. of KR'92, 71-82.
29. Janhunen, T. 1998. On the intertranslatability of autoepistemic, default and priority logics, and parralel circumscription. In Proc. of JELIA'98, volume 1489 of Lectures Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 216-232. Springer-Verlag.
30. Kaci, S. 2002. Fusion de connaissances et de préférences en logique possibiliste. Ph.D. Dissertation, Université Paul Sabatier.
31. Katsuno, H., and Mendelzon, A. 1991. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Proceedings of KR'91, 387-394.
32. Konieczny, S., and Pino-Pérez, R. 1998. On the logic of merging. In Proc. of KR'98, 488-498.
33. Konieczny, S.; Lang, J.; and Marquis, P. 2002. Distance-based merging: a general framework and some complexity results. In Proc. of KR'02, 97-108.
34. Lafage, C., and Lang, J. 2000. Logical representation of preferences for group decision making. In Proc. of KR'00, 457-468.
35. Lafage, C., and Lang, J. 2001. Propositional distances and preference representation. In Proceedings of ECSQARU-2001, 48-59.
36. Lang, J.; van der Torre, L.; and Weydert, E. 2002. Utilitarian desires. International Journal on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 5:329-363.
37. Lang, J. 1996. Conditional desires and utilities - an alternative logical approach to qualitative decision theory. In Proc. of ECAI'96, 318-322.
38. Lang, J. 2002. From preference representation to combinatorial vote. In Proc. of KR'02, 277-288.
39. Lehmann, D. 1995. Another perspective on default reasoning. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 15(1):61-82.
40. Liberatore, P., and Schaerf, M. 1998. Arbitration (or how to merge knowledge bases). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 10(1):76-90.
41. Liberatore, P. 2001. Monotonic reductions, representative equivalence, and compilation of intractable problems. Journal of the ACM 48(6):1091-1125.
42. Lin, J., and Mendelzon, A. O. 1999. Knowledge base merging by majority. In Dynamic Worlds: From the Frame Problem to Knowledge Management. Kluwer.
43. Magidor, M., and Schlechta, K. 2001. Distance semantics for belief revision. Journal of Symbolic Logic 66(1):295-317.
44. Nebel, B. 1998. How hard is it to revise a knowledge base? In Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems. Kluwer Academics. 77-145.
45. Nebel, B. 2000. On the compilability and expressive power of propositional planning formalisms. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 12:271-315.
46. Pearl, J. 1990. System Z: a natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications for default reasoning. In Proc. of TARK'90, 121-135.
47. Pinkas, G. 1995. Reasoning, nonmonotonicity and learning in connectionist networds that capture propositional knowledge. Artificial Intelligence 77:203-247.
48. Revesz, P. 1997. On the semantics of arbitration. Int, Journal of Algebra and Computation 133-160.
49. Tan, S., and Pearl, J. 1994. Specification and evaluation of preferences for planning under uncertainty. In Proc. of KR'94, 530-539.
50. van der Torre, L., and Weydert, E. 2001. Parameters for utilitarian desires in a qualitative decision theory. Applied Intelligence 14(3):285-302.