Journal of Heuristics

, Volume 12, Issue 4–5, pp 241–262 | Cite as

A logic of soft constraints based on partially ordered preferences

  • Nic WilsonEmail author


Representing and reasoning with an agent’s preferences is important in many applications of constraints formalisms. Such preferences are often only partially ordered. One class of soft constraints formalisms, semiring-based CSPs, allows a partially ordered set of preference degrees, but this set must form a distributive lattice; whilst this is convenient computationally, it considerably restricts the representational power. This paper constructs a logic of soft constraints where it is only assumed that the set of preference degrees is a partially ordered set, with a maximum element 1 and a minimum element 0. When the partially ordered set is a distributive lattice, this reduces to the idempotent semiring-based CSP approach, and the lattice operations can be used to define a sound and complete proof theory. A generalised possibilistic logic, based on partially ordered values of possibility, is also constructed, and shown to be formally very strongly related to the logic of soft constraints. It is shown how the machinery that exists for the distributive lattice case can be used to perform sound and complete deduction, using a compact embedding of the partially ordered set in a distributive lattice.


Preferences Soft constraints Possibilistic logic Semiring-based CSPs 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Benferhat, S., S. Lagrue, and O. Papini. (2002). “Reasoning with Partially Ordered Information in a Possibilistic Logic Framework.” In Proceedings of IPMU 2002, pp. 1047–1052.Google Scholar
  2. Bertele, U. and F. Brioschi. (1972). Nonserial Dynamic Programming, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bistarelli, S., T. Fruewirth, M. Marte, and F. Rossi. (2004). “Soft Constraint Propagation and Solving in Constraint Handling Rules.” Computational Intelligence, Special Issue on Preferences in AI and CP.Google Scholar
  4. Bistarelli, S., U. Montanari, F. Rossi, T. Schiex, G. Verfaillie, and H. Fargier. (1999). “Semiring-Based CSPs and Valued CSPs: Frameworks, Properties and Comparison.” Constraints 4(3), 199–240.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Bistarelli, S., U. Montanari, and F. Rossi. (1997). “Semiring-Based Constraint Solving and Optimization.” Journal of the ACM (JACM) 44(2), 201–236.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Bistarelli, S., U. Montanari, and F. Rossi. (2001). “Semiring-Based Constraint Logic Programming: Syntax and Semantics.” ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems.Google Scholar
  7. Bistarelli, S., U. Montanari, and F. Rossi. (2002). “Soft Concurrent Constraint Programming.” In Proc. 11th European Symposium on Programming (ESOP), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), Springer, pp. 53–67.Google Scholar
  8. Bistarelli, S. (2004). Semirings for Soft Constraint Solving and Programming, Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Boutilier, C., R.I. Brafman, H.H. Hoos, and D. Poole. (1999). “Reasoning with Conditional Ceteris Paribus Preference Statements.” In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI99), pp. 71–80.Google Scholar
  10. Boutilier, C., R. Brafman, C. Domshlak, H. Hoos, and D. Poole. (2004). “CP-Nets: A Tool for Representing and Reasoning with Conditional Ceteris Paribus Statements.” JAIR 21, 135–191.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Dechter, R. and I. Rish. (2003). “Mini-Buckets: A General Scheme for Bounded Inference.” Journal of the ACM 50(2), 107–153.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Dechter, R. (1999).“Bucket Elimination: A Unifying Framework for Reasoning.” Artificial Intelligence, 113.Google Scholar
  13. Dubois, D., J. Lang, and H. Prade. (1991). “Timed Possibilistic Logic.” Fundamenta Informaticae, XV.Google Scholar
  14. Dubois, D., J. Lang, and H. Prade. (1994). Possibilistic Logic, Pages 439–513. In: Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol. 3, D. Gabbay, C. Hogger and J. Robinson (eds.), Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fargier, H., J. Lang, and T. Schiex. (1993). “Selecting Preferred Solutions in Fuzzy Constraint Satisfaction Problems.” In Proc. of the first European Congress on Fuzzy and Intelligent Technologies.Google Scholar
  16. Garey, M.R. and D.S. Johnson. (1979). Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Kohlas, J. and P. Shenoy. (2000). Computation in Valuation Algebras. In: Kohlas, J., Moral, S., (eds.) Algorithms for Uncertainty and Defeasible Reasoning, Volume 5, Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Kohlas, J. (2003). Information Algebras, Springer, London.Google Scholar
  19. Schiex, T., H. Fargier, and G. Verfaillie. (1995). “Valued Constraint Satisfaction Problems: Hard and Easy Problems.” In Proc. IJCAI-95, pp. 631–637.Google Scholar
  20. Shenoy, P.P. and G. Shafer. (1990). “Axioms for Probability and Belief Function Propagation.” In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 4, pp. 575–610.Google Scholar
  21. Shenoy, P. P. (1992). “Valuation-Based Systems: A Framework for Managing Uncertainty in Expert Systems.” Fuzzy Logic for the Management of Uncertainty.Google Scholar
  22. Wilson, N. (2003). “A Logic of Partially Satisfied Constraints.” In Soft'03: Fifth International Workshop on Soft Constraints.Google Scholar
  23. Wilson, N. (2004a). “Extending CP-Nets with Stronger Conditional Preference Statements.” In Proceedings of AAAI-04, pp. 735–741.Google Scholar
  24. Wilson, N. (2004b). “Soft Constraints with Partially Ordered Preferences (short paper).” In Proc. European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1111–1112.Google Scholar
  25. Wilson, N. (2005). “Decision Diagrams for the Computation of Semiring Valuations.” In Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-05), pp. 331–336.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cork Constraint Computation Centre, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations