Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preferences in artificial intelligence

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper presents a focused survey about the presence and the use of the concept of “preferences” in Artificial Intelligence. Preferences are a central concept for decision making and have extensively been studied in disciplines such as economy, operational research, decision analysis, psychology and philosophy. However, in the recent years it has also become an important topic both for research and applications in Computer Science and more specifically in Artificial Intelligence, in fields spanning from recommender systems to automatic planning, from non monotonic reasoning to computational social choice and algorithmic decision theory. The survey essentially covers the basics of preference modelling, the use of preference in reasoning and argumentation, the problem of compact representations of preferences, preference learning and the use of non conventional preference models based on extended logical languages. It aims at providing a general reference for all researchers both in Artificial Intelligence and Decision Analysis interested in this exciting interdisciplinary topic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Åqvist, L.: Deontic logic. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pp. 147–264. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Adams, E.: The Logic of Conditionals. Reidel, Dordrecht (1975)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Alchourrón, C.: Philosophical foundations of deontic logic and the logic of defeasible conditionals. In: Meyer, J.J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification, pp. 43–84. Wiley, New York (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aleskerov, F., Bouyssou, D., Monjardet, B.: Utility Maximization, Choice and Preference, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (2007)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Alsina, C.: On a family of connectives for fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 16, 231–235 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Amgoud, L.: A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In: Proceedings of ECSQARU’03, vol. 2711, pp. 552–563 (2003)

  7. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Integrating preference orderings into argument-based reasoning, pp. 159–170 (1997)

  8. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of UAI’98, pp. 1–7 (1998)

  9. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34, 197–216 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., LeBerre, D.: Comparing arguments using preference orderings for argument-based reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pp. 400–403 (1996)

  11. Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Proceedings of AAMAS’07, pp. 158:1–158:8 (2007)

  12. Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: Making decisions through preference- based argumentation. In: Proceedings of KR‘08, pp. 113–123 (2008)

  13. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modeling dialogues using argumentation. In: Proceedingd of ICMAS’00, pp. 31–38 (2000)

  14. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artif. Intell. 173, 413–436 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Generalizing stable semantics by preferences. In: COMMA, pp. 39–50 (2010)

  16. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: A new approach for preference-based argumentation frameworks. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 63, 149–183 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Arieli, O., Avron, A.: The value of the four values. Artif. Intell. 102, 97–141 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Arieli, O., Avron, A., Zamansky, A.: Ideal paraconsistent logics. Stud. Logica. 99, 31–60 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Arieli, O., Cornelis, C., Deschrijver, G.: Preference modeling by rectangular bilattices. In: Proceedings of MDAI 2006, LNAI 3885, pp. 22–33. Springer, Berlin (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Arrow, K.: Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York (1963)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: Persuasive political argument. In: Computational Models of Natural Argument, IJCAI’05 workshop, pp. 44–51 (2005)

  22. Baader, F., Hollunder, B.: Priorities on defaults with prerequisites, and their application in treating specificity in terminological default logic. J. Autom. Reason. 15(1), 41–68 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Bacchus, F., Grove, A.: Graphical models for preference and utility. In: Proceedings of UAI’95, pp. 3–10 (1995)

  24. Baier, J.A., McIlraith, S.A.: Planning with Preferences. AI Mag. 29(4), 25–36 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Barberà, S., Bossert, W., Pattanaik, P.K.: Ranking sets of objects. In: Barberà, S., Hammond, P., Seidl, C. (eds.) Handbook of Utility Theory, Vol 2: Extensions, pp. 893–977. Springer, Berlin (2004)

  26. Belnap, N.: How a computer should think. In: Proceedings of the Oxford International Symposium on Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy, pp. 30–56, Oxford (1976)

  27. Belnap, N.: A useful four-valued logic. In: Epstein, G., Dunn, J. (eds.) Modern Uses of Multiple Valued Logics, pp. 8–37. Reidel, Dordrecht (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Belton, V., Gear, T.: On a short-coming of saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11(3), 228–230 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Benabbou, N., Perny, P., Viappiani, P.: Incremental elicitation of choquet capacities for multicriteria decision making. In: ECAI 2014 - 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 18–22 August 2014, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 87–92 (2014)

  30. Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171, 619–641 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13, 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of UAI’93, pp. 411–419 (1993)

  33. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Towards a possibilistic logic handling of preferences. Appl. Intell. 14, 303–317 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Benthem, J., Grossi, D., Liu, F.: Deontics = betterness + priority. In: Governatori, G., Sartor, G. (eds.) Deontic Logic in Computer Science, LNCS, vol. 6181, pp. 50–65. Springer, Berlin (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Bergstra, J., Bethke, I., Rodenburg, P.: A propositional logic with four values: true, false, divergent and meaningless. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 5, 199–217 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press (2008)

  37. Bienvenu, M., Lang, J., Wilson, N.: From preference logics to preference languages, and back. In: Proceedings of KR 10, pp. 214–224 (2010)

  38. Bigot, D., Zanuttini, B., Fargier, H., Mengin, J.: Probabilistic conditional preference networks. CoRR arXiv:1309.6817 (2013)

  39. Bistarelli, S., Pini, M., Rossi, F., Venable, K.: From soft constraints to bipolar preferences: modelling framework and solving issues. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 22, 135–158 (2010)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Bistarelli, S., Pini, M., Rossi, F., Venable, K.: Uncertainty in bipolar preference problems. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 23, 545–575 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Verhagen, H.: Introduction to normative multiagent systems. Computation and Mathematical Organizational Theory, Special issue on Normative Multiagent Systems 12(2–3), 71–79 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93, 63–101 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Bondarenko, A., Toni, F., Kowalski, R.: An assumption-based framework for non-monotonic reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp. 171–189 (1993)

  44. Booth, R., Chevaleyre, Y., Lang, J., Mengin, J., Sombattheera, C.: Learning conditionally lexicographic preference relations. In: Proceedings of ECAI’10, pp. 269–274 (2010)

  45. Bossu, G., Siegel, P.: Saturation, nonmonotonic reasoning and the closed-world assumption. Artif. Intell. 25, 13–65 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Boutilier, C.: What is a default priority. In: Proceedings of Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence Conference, pp. 140–147 (1992)

  47. Boutilier, C.: A POMDP formulation of preference elicitation problems. In: Proceedings of AAAI’02, pp. 239–246 (2002)

  48. Boutilier, C., Bacchus, F., Brafman, R.: UCP-networks: a directed graphical representation of conditional utilities. In: Proceedings of UAI’01, pp. 56–64 (2001)

  49. Boutilier, C., Brafman, R., Hoos, H., Poole, D.: Reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. In: Proceedings of UAI’99, pp. 71–80 (1999)

  50. Boutilier, C., Patrascu, R., Poupart, P., Schuurmans, D.: Constraint-based optimization and utility elicitation using the minimax decision criterion. Artif. Intell. 170, 686–713 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., Pirlot, M., Perny, P., Tsoukiàs, A., Vincke, P.: Evaluation and Decision Models: a Critical Perspective. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., Pirlot, M., Tsoukiàs, A., Vincke, P.: Evaluation and Decision Models with Multiple Criteria: Stepping Stones for the Analyst. Springer, Boston (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Bouyssou, D., Pirlot, M.: Preferences for multiattributed alternatives: traces, dominance, and numerical representations. J. Math. Psychol. 48, 167–185 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Bouyssou, D., Pirlot, M.: Conjoint measurement tools for MCDM. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pp. 73–132. Springer, Boston (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Bouyssou, D., Pirlot, M.: Following the traces: - an introduction to conjoint measurement without transitivity and additivity. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 163, 287–337 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  56. Bouyssou, D., Pirlot, M.: Conjoint measurement models for preference relations. In: Bouyssou, D., Dubois, D., Pirlot, M., Prade, H. (eds.) Decision Making Process, pp. 617–672. Wiley, New York (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  57. Brafman, R., Dimopoulos, Y.: Extended semantics and optimization algorithms for CP-networks. Comput. Intell. 20, 219–245 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  58. Brafman, R., Domshlak, C.: Introducing variable importance tradeoffs into CP-Nets. In: Proceedings of UAI’02, pp. 69–76 (2002)

  59. Brafman, R., Domshlak, C.: Graphically structured value-function compilation. Artif. Intell. 172, 325–349 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  60. Brafman, R., Domshlak, C.: Preference handling: an introductory tutorial. AI Mag. 30, 58–86 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Brafman, R., Roberts, F., Tsoukiàs, A.: Proceedings of ADT 2011. LNAI 6992. Springer, Berlin (2011)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  62. Braunhofer, M., Kaminskas, M., Ricci, F.: Location-aware music recommendation. IJMIR 2(1), 31–44 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Brewka, G.: Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2, IJCAI’89, pp. 1043–1048. Morgan Kaufmann (1989)

  64. Brewka, G.: Adding priorities and specificity to default logic. In: MacNish, C., Pearce, D., Pereira, L.M. (eds.) Logics in Artificial Intelligence, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 838, pp. 247–260. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (1994)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  65. Brewka, G.: Reasoning about priorities in default logic. In: Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 940–945. MIT Press (1994)

  66. Brewka, G.: A rank-based description language for qualitative preferences. In: Proceedings of ECAI 04, p. 303307 (2004)

  67. Brewka, G., Niemel, I., Truszczynski, M.: Answer set optimization. In: Proceedings of IJCAI’03, pp. 867–872 (2003)

  68. Brewka, G., Niemela, I., Truszczynski, M.: Preferences and nonmonotonic reasoning. AI Mag. 29, 69–78 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Brinker, K., Hüllermeier, E.: Case-based label ranking. In: Fürnkranz, J., Scheffer, T., Spiliopoulou, M. (eds.) ECML, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4212, pp. 566–573. Springer (2006)

  70. Britz, K., Heidema, J., Meyer, T.A.: Semantic preferential subsumption. In: Proceedings of KR’08, pp. 476–484 (2008)

  71. Britz, K., Meyer, T., Varzinczak, I.: Preferential reasoning for modal logics. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 278, 55–69 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  72. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171, 286–310 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  73. Casini, G., Straccia, U.: Rational closure for defeasible description logics. In: Proceedings of JELIA’10, pp. 77–90 (2010)

  74. Castañeda, H.: The paradoxes of deontic logic: the simplest solution to all of them in one fell swoop. In: Hilpinen, R. (ed.) New Studies in Deontic Logic: Norms, Actions and the Foundations of Ethics, pp. 37–85. Reidel, Doredrecht (1981)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  75. Cayrol, C., Royer, V., Saurel, C.: Management of preferences in assumption-based reasoning. In: Proceedings of IPMU’92, pp. 13–22 (1993)

  76. Chajewska, U., Koller, D., Parr, R.: Making rational decisions using adaptive utility elicitation. In: Proceedings of AAAI’00, pp. 363–369 (2000)

  77. Chellas, B.: Conditional obligation. In: Stunland, S. (ed.) Logical Theory and Semantical Analysis, pp. 23–33. Reidel, Dordrecht (1974)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  78. Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., Lang, J.: Expressive power of weighted propositional formulas for cardinal preference modeling. In: Proceedings of KR’06, pp. 145–152 (2006)

  79. Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., Lang, J., Maudet, N.: Preference handling in combinatorial domains: from AI to social choice. AI Mag. 29(4), 37–46 (2008). http://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/2201

    Google Scholar 

  80. Chevaleyre, Y., Koriche, F., Lang, J., Mengin, J., Zanuttini, B.: Learning ordinal preferences on multiattribute domains: the case of cp-nets. In: Fürnkranz, J., Hüllermeier, E. (eds.) Preference Learning, pp. 273–296. Springer, Berlin (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  81. Chisholm, R.: Perceiving. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1957)

    Google Scholar 

  82. Chisholm, R.: Theory of Knowledge. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1966)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  83. Colorni, A., Tsoukiàs, A.: What is a decision problem? preliminary statements. In: Proceedings of ADT’13, LNAI 8176, pp. 139–153. Springer, Berlin (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  84. Bana e Costa, C.A., Vansnick, J.C.: MACBETH - an interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 1, 489–500 (1994)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  85. Bana e Costa, C.A., Vansnick, J.C.: A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 187, 1422–1428 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  86. Critchlow, D.E., Fligner, M.A., Verducci, J.S.: Probability models on rankings. J. Math. Psychol. 35, 294–318 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  87. Danielsson, S.: Preference and obligation. Studies in the logic of ethics. Filosofiska föreningen, Uppsala (1968)

  88. de Finetti, B.: La prévision : ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives. In: Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré, vol. 7, pp. 1–68. Paris (1937). Translated into English by Henry E. Kyburg Jr., Foresight: Its Logical Laws, its Subjective Sources. In Henry E. Kyburg Jr. and Howard E. Smokler (1964, Eds.), Studies in Subjective Probability, 53–118, Wiley, New York

  89. Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T.: Expressing preferences in default logic. Artif. Intell. 123(1–2), 41–87 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  90. Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T.H.: Compiling reasoning with and about preferences into default logic. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence - Volume 1, IJCAI’97, pp. 168–174. Morgan Kaufmann (1997)

  91. Deschrijver, G., Arieli, O., Cornelis, C., Kerre, E.: A bilattice-based framework for handling graded truth and imprecision. J. Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowledge Based Syst. 15, 13–41 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  92. Doherty, P., Driankov, D., Tsoukiàs, A.: Partial logics and partial preferences. In: Proceedings of CEMIT’92, pp. 525–528 (1992)

  93. Domshlak, C., Brafman, R.: CP-nets - reasoning and consistency testing. In: Proceedings of KR’02, pp. 121–132 (2002)

  94. Domshlak, C., Hüllermeier, E., Kaci, S., Prade, H.: Preferences in AI: an overview. Artif. Intell. 175, 1037–1052 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  95. Doyle, J.: Prospects for preferences. Comput. Intell. 20, 111–136 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  96. Doyle, J., Wellman, M.: Impediments to universal preference-based default theories. Artif. Intell. 49, 97–128 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  97. Dubarle, D.: Essai sur la généralisation naturelle de la logique usuelle. Mathématique, Informatique, Sciences Humaines N ∘ 107, 17–73 (1989). 1963 manuscript, published posthumously

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  98. Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Perny, P.: Qualitative decision theory with preference relations and comparative uncertainty: an axiomatic approach. Artif. Intell. 148, 219–260 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  99. Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Perny, P., Prade, H.: Qualitative decision theory: from Savage’s axioms to non-monotonic reasoning. J. ACM 49, 455–495 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  100. Dubois, D., Grabisch, M., Modave, F., Prade, H.: Relating decision under uncertainty and multicriteria decision making models. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 15, 967–979 (2000)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  101. Dubois, D., Prade, H.: A class of fuzzy measures based on triangular norms. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 8, 43–61 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  102. Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibility Theory. Plenum Press, New-York (1988)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  103. Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibility theory as a basis for qualitative decision theory. In: Proceedings of IJCAI’95, pp. 1924–1930 (1995)

  104. Dubois, D., Prade, H.: An introduction to bipolar representations of information and preference. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23, 866–877 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  105. Dubus, J., Gonzales, C., Perny, P.: Multiobjective optimization using GAI models. In: Proceedings of IJCAI’09, pp. 1902–1907 (2009)

  106. Dung, P.: An argumentation semantics for logic programming with explicit negation. In: Proceedings of the 10th Logic Programming Conference, pp. 616–630 (1993)

  107. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  108. Dupinde Saint-Cyr, F., Lang, J., Schiex, T.: Penalty logic and its link with DempsterShafer theory. In: Proceedings of UAI’94, pp. 204–211 (1994)

  109. Dyer, J.S.: A clarification of ”remarks on the analytic hierarchy process”. Manag. Sci. 36(3), 274–275 (1990). http://www.jstor.org/stable/2631949

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  110. Dyer, J.S.: Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Manag. Sci. 36(3), 249–258 (1990). http://www.jstor.org/stable/2631946

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  111. Ehrgott, M.: Multiobjective optimization. AI Mag. 29(4), 47–57 (2008). http://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/2198

    Google Scholar 

  112. Etherington, D.: Reasoning with Incomplete Information. Pitman, London (1988)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  113. Fages, F., Ruet, P.: Combining explicit negation and negation by failure via belnap’s logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 171, 61–75 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  114. Fargier, H., Sabadin, R.: Qualitative decision under uncertainty: back to expected utility. Artif. Intell. 164, 245–280 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  115. Fishburn, P.: Utility Theory for Decision Making. Wiley, New York (1970)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  116. Fishburn, P.: Lexicographic orders, utilities and decision rules: a survey. Manag. Sci. 20, 1442–1471 (1974)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  117. Fishburn, P.: Interval Orders and Interval Graphs. Wiley, New York (1985)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  118. Fishburn, P.: Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1988)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  119. Fishburn, P.: Preference structures and their numerical representations. Theor. Comput. Sci. 217, 359–383 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  120. Fitting, M.: Bilattices and the semantics of logic programming. J. Log. Program. 11, 91–116 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  121. Fodor, J., Roubens, M.: Fuzzy Preference Modelling and Multicriteria Decision Support. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1994)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  122. Føllesdal, D., Hilpinen, R.: Deontic logic: an introduction. In: Hilpinen, R. (ed.) Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings. Reidel, Dordrecht (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  123. Font, J., Moussavi, M.: Note on a six valued extension of three valued logics. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 3, 173–187 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  124. Forrester, J.W.: Gentle murder, or the adverbial samaritan. J. Philos. 81, 193–196 (1984)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  125. Fortemps, P., Słowiński, R.: A graded quadrivalent logic for ordinal preference modelling: loyola-like approach. Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Making 1, 93–111 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  126. Fürnkranz, J., Hüllermeier, E., Cheng, W., Park, S.H.: Preference-based reinforcement learning: a formal framework and a policy iteration algorithm. Mach. Learn. 89, 123–156 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  127. Gabbay, D.: Theoretical foundations for nonmonotonic reasoning in expert systems. In: Proceedings Nato Advanced Study Institute on Logic and Models of Concurrent Systems, pp. 439–457. Springer, Berlin (1985)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  128. Gajos, K., Weld, D.S.: Preference elicitation for interface optimization. In: Proceedings of UIST’05, pp. 173–182 (2005)

  129. García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 4, 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  130. Gedikli, F., Jannach, D., Ge, M.: How should I explain? A comparison of different explanation types for recommender systems. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 72 (4), 367–382 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Geffner, H., Pearl, J.: Conditional entailment: bridging two approaches to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 53(2–3), 209–244 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  132. Gelain, M., Pini, M., Rossi, F., Venable, K., Wilson, N.: Interval-valued soft constraint problems. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 58, 261–298 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  133. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Logic programs with classical negation. In: Warren, D.H. (ed.) Logic Programming, pp. 579–597. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  134. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. N. Gener. Comput. 9, 365–385 (1991)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  135. Gelfond, M., Przymusinska, H., Przymusinski, T.: On the relationship between circumscription and negation as failure. AIJ 38, 75–94 (1989)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  136. Gilboa, I., Schmeidler, D., Wakker, P.: Utility in case-based decision theory. J. Econ. Theory 105, 483–502 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  137. Ginsberg, M.: Multivalued logics: a uniform approach to reasoning in artificial intelligence. Comput. Intell. 4, 265–316 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Giordano, L., Olivetti, N., Gliozzi, V., Pozzato, G.L.: Alc + t: a preferential extension of description logics. Fundamenta Informaticae 96, 341–372 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  139. Goble, L.: A logic of good, would and should. part 1. J. Philos. Log. 19, 169–199 (1990)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  140. Goble, L.: A logic of good, would and should. part 2. J. Philos. Log. 19, 253–276 (1990)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  141. Gonzales, C., Perny, P.: GAI networks for utility elicitation. In: Proceedings KR’04, pp. 224–234 (2004)

  142. Gonzales, C., Perny, P., Queiroz, S.: Preference aggregation with graphical utility models. In: Proceedings of AAAI’08, pp. 1037–1042 (2008)

  143. Gordon, T.: The pleading game An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  144. Governatori, G., Maher, M., Antoniou, G., Billington, D.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. J. Log. Comput. 14(5), 675–702 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  145. Grabisch, M.: Fuzzy integral in multicriteria decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 69, 279–298 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  146. Grabisch, M., Labreuche, C.: Fuzzy measures and integrals in MCDA. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pp. 563–608. Springer, Boston (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  147. Greco, S., Mousseau, V., Slowinski, R.: Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 191, 416–436 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  148. Greco, S., Mousseau, V., Slowinski, R.: Multiple criteria sorting with a set of additive value functions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207, 1455–1470 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  149. Guo, S., Sanner, S.: Real-time multiattribute bayesian preference elicitation with pairwise comparison queries. In: AISTATS, pp. 289–296 (2010)

  150. Halpern, J., Moses, Y.: Towards a theory of knowledge and ignorance: preliminary report. In: Proceedings of NMR’84, pp. 125–143 (1984)

  151. Hansson, B.: An analysis of some deontic logics. Noûs 3, 373–398 (1969)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  152. Hansson, S.: Preference-Based Deontic Logic (PDL). J. Philos. Log. 19, 75–93 (1990)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  153. Harker, P.T., Vargas, L.G.: Reply to ”remarks on the analytic hierarchy process” by j. s. dyer. Manag. Sci. 36(3), 269–273 (1990). http://www.jstor.org/stable/2631948

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  154. Herbrich, R., Minka, T., Graepel, T.: Trueskilltm: a bayesian skill rating system. In: Proceedings of NIPS’06, pp. 569–576 (2006)

  155. Israel, D.: What’s wrong with non-monotonic logic?. In: Proceedings of AAAI’80, pp. 99–101 (1980)

  156. Israel, D.: The role(s) of logic in artificial intelligence. In: Gabbay, D.M., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. I, pp. 1–31. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  157. Jackson, F.: On the semantics and logic of obligation. Mind 94, 177–196 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  158. Jacquet-Lagrèze, E., Siskos, Y.: Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision making: the UTA method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 10, 151–164 (1982)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  159. Jacquet-Lagrèze, E., Siskos, Y.: Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 130, 233–245 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  160. Joachims, T.: Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In: Proceedings of KDD’02, pp. 133–142 (2002)

  161. Jones, A., Sergot, M.: Deontic logic in the representation of law: towards a methodology. Artif. Intell. Law 1, 45–64 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Jones, A., Sergot, M.: On the characterisation of law and computer systems: the normative systems perspective. In: Meyer, J.J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Wiley (1993)

  163. Jørgensen, J.: Imperatives and logic. Erkenntnis 7, 288–296 (1938)

    Google Scholar 

  164. Kaci, S.: Refined preference-based argumentation frameworks. In: COMMA, pp. 299–310 (2010)

  165. Kaci, S.: Working with preferences: Less is More. Springer, Berlin (2011)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  166. Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Preference-based argumentation: arguments supporting multiple values. J. Approx. Reason. 48(3), 730–751 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  167. Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.W.N., Weydert, E.: Acyclic argumentation: attack = conflict + preference. In: Proceedings of ECAI’06, pp. 725–726 (2006)

  168. Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Reasoning with various kinds of preferences: logic, non-monotonicity, and algorithms. Ann. Oper. Res. 163, 89114 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  169. Kacprzyk, J., Roubens, M.: Non Conventional Preference Relations in Decision Making. Springer Verlag, LNMES n. 301, Berlin (1988)

  170. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–291 (1979)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  171. Kakas, A., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of AAMAS’03, pp. 883–890 (2003)

  172. Kaluzhny, Y., Muravitsky, A.: A knowledge representation based on the Belnap’s four valued logic. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 3, 189–203 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  173. Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley, New York (1976)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  174. Köbberling, V., Wakker, P.: Preference foundations for nonexpected utility: a generalized and simplified technique. Math. Oper. Res. 28, 395–423 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  175. Kok, E.M., Meyer, J.J.C., Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: A formal argumentation framework for deliberation dialogues. In: Proceedings of ArgMAS’10, pp. 31–48 (2010)

  176. Koons, R.: Defeasible reasoning. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, on-line. Stanford University, Stanford (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  177. Kouvelis, P., Yu, G.: Robust Discrete Optimization and Its Applications. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  178. Krantz, D., Luce, R., Suppes, P., Tversky, A.: Foundations of Measurement, vol. 1: Additive and Polynomial Representations. Academic Press, New York (1971)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  179. Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., Magidor, M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artif. Intell. 44, 167–207 (1990)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  180. Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artif. Intell. 104, 1–69 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  181. Labreuche, C., Huédé, F.L.: MYRIAD: a tool suite for MCDA. In: Proceedings of EUSFLAT’05, pp. 204–209 (2005)

  182. Lafage, C., Lang, J.: Propositional distances and compact preference representation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 160, 741–761 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  183. Lang, J.: Logical preference representation and combinatorial vote. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 42, 3771 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  184. Lang, J.: Logical representation of preferences. In: Bouyssou, D., Dubois, D., Pirlot, M., Prade, H. (eds.) Decision-Making Process: Concepts and Methods, pp. 321–363. Wiley, New York (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  185. Lang, J., Mengin, J., Xia, L.: Aggregating conditionally lexicographic preferences on multi-issue domains. In: Proceedings of CP 2012, pp. 973–987 (2012)

  186. Lehmann, D., Magidor, M.: Preferential logics: the predicate calculus case. In: Proceedings of TARK’90, pp. 57–72 (1990)

  187. Lehmann, D., Magidor, M.: What does a conditional knowledge base entail? Artif. Intell. 55, 1–60 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  188. Lewis, D.: Semantic analysis for dyadic deontic logic. In: Stunland, S. (ed.) Logical Theory and Semantical Analysis, pp. 1–14. Reidel, Dordrecht (1974)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  189. Lifschitz, V.: Computing circumscription. In: Proceedings of IJCAI’85, pp. 121–127 (1985)

  190. Lifschitz, V.: Pointwise circumscription. In: Ginsberg, M. (ed.) Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp. 179–193. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  191. Lootsma, F.: Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Via Ratio and Difference Judgement. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1999)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  192. Loui, R.: Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Comput. Intell. 2, 100–106 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  193. Lu, T., Boutilier, C.: Learning mallows models with pairwise preferences. In: Proceedings of ICML’11, pp. 145–152 (2011)

  194. Lu, T., Boutilier, C.: Robust approximation and incremental elicitation in voting protocols. In: IJCAI 2011, Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, July 16–22, 2011, pp. 287–293 (2011)

  195. Makinson, D.: General theory of cumulative inference. In: Reinfrank, M., de Kleer, J., Ginsberg, M., Sandewall, R. (eds.) Non-Monotonic Reasoning, LNCS 346, pp. 1–18. Springer, Berlin (1989)

  196. Mally, E.: Grundgesetze des Sollens. Elemente der Logik des Willens. Graz: Leuschner & Leubensky (1926)

  197. Marchant, T.: Towards a theory of MCDM: stepping away from social choice theory. Math. Soc. Sci. 45, 343–363 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  198. Marichal, J.L., Meyer, P., Roubens, M.: Sorting multi-attribute alternatives: the TOMASO method. Comput. Oper. Res. 32, 861–877 (2005)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  199. Marquis, S., Lang, J., Liberatore, P., Marquis, P.: Expressive power and succinctness of propositional languages for preference representation. In: Proceedings of KR’04, pp. 203–212 (2004)

  200. McCarthy, J.: Circumscription: a form of nonmonotonic reasoning. Artif. Intell. 13, 27–39 (1980)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  201. McCarthy, J.: Applications of circumscription to formalizing of commonsense knowledge. Artif. Intell. 28, 89–116 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  202. McCarty, L.T.: Modalities over actions: 1. model theory. In: Proceedings of (KR’94), pp. 437–448. Morgan Kaufmann (1994)

  203. McDermott, D.: Non-monotonic logic i. Artif. Intell. 13, 41–72 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  204. McDermott, D., Doyle, J.: Non-monotonic logic ii. J. ACM 29, 33–57 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  205. McNamara, P.: Deontic logic. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, on-line. Stanford University, Stanford (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  206. McSherry, D., Stretch, C.: Automating the discovery of recommendation knowledge. In: Proceedings of IJCAI’05, pp. 9–14 (2005)

  207. Minka, T.P.: Expectation propagation for approximate bayesian inference. In: Proceedings of UAI’01, pp. 362–369 (2001)

  208. Modgil, S.: Nested argumentation and its application to decision making over actions. In: Proceedings of ArgMAS’05, pp. 57–73. Springer, Berlin (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  209. Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation framework. Artif. Intell. 173, 901–934 (2009)

  210. Moore, R.: Semantic considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Artif. Intell. 25, 75–94 (1985)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  211. Moretti, S., Öztürk, M., Tsoukiàs, A.: Preference modelling. In: Ehrgott, M., Greco, S., Figueira, J. (eds.) State of the Art in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. New revised version. Springer, Berlin (to appear)

  212. Moretti, S., Tsoukiàs, A.: Ranking sets of possibly interacting objects using Shapley extensions. In: Proceedings of KR 12, pp. 199–209 (2012)

  213. Nute, D.: Defeasible reasoning and decision support systems. Decis. Support. Syst. 4, 97–110 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  214. Nute, D. (ed.): Defeasible Deontic Logic. Synthese Library 263. Kluwer (1997)

  215. Orlovsky, S.: Decision making with a fuzzy preference relation. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1, 155–167 (1978)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  216. Ovchinnikov, S.: Structure of fuzzy binary relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 6, 169–195 (1981)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  217. Öztürk, M., Tsoukiàs, A.: Modelling uncertain positive and negative reasons in decision aiding. Decis. Support. Syst. 43, 1512–1526 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  218. Öztürk, M., Tsoukiàs, A.: Bipolar preference modelling and aggregation in decision support. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23, 970–984 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  219. Öztürk, M., Tsoukiàs, A., Vincke, Ph.: Preference modelling. In: Ehrgott, M., Greco, S., Figueira, J. (eds.) State of the Art in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, pp. 27–72. Springer, Berlin (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  220. Pearl, J.: Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1988)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  221. Pearl, J.: System Z: A natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to default reasoning. In: Proceedings of TARK’90, pp. 121–135 (1990)

  222. Pearl, J., Geffner, H.: Probabilistic semantics for a subset of default reasoning. Technical Report CSD-8700XX, R-93-III, Computer Science Dept., UCLA (1988)

  223. Peintner, B., Viappiani, P., Yorke-Smith, N.: Preferences in interactive systems: technical challenges and case studies. AI Mag. 29(4), 13–24 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  224. Perelman, C.: Justice, Law and Argument. Reidel, Dordrecht (1980)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  225. Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  226. Perny, P., Pirlot, M., Tsoukiàs, A.: Proceedings of ADT 2013. LNAI 8176. Springer, Berlin (2013)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  227. Perny, P., Roy, B.: The use of fuzzy outranking relations in preference modelling. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 49, 33–53 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  228. Perny, P., Tsoukiàs, A.: On the continuous extension of a four valued logic for preference modelling. In: Proceedings of IPMU’98, pp. 302–309 (1998)

  229. Pirlot, M., Vincke, P.: Semi Orders. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  230. Pollock, J.: Knowledge and Justification. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  231. Pollock, J.: Defeasible reasoning. Cogn. Sci. 11, 481–518 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  232. Prakken, H.: A tool in modelling disagreement in law: preferring the most specific argument. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 165–174 (1991)

  233. Prakken, H.: An argumentation framework in default logic. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 9, 91–131 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  234. Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J. Log. Comput. 15, 1009–1040 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  235. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  236. Price, R., Messinger, P.R.: Optimal recommendation sets: covering uncertainty over user preferences. In: Proceedings of AAAI’05, pp. 541–548 (2005)

  237. Pu, P., Chen, L.: User-involved preference elicitation for product search and recommender systems. AI Mag. 29(4), 93–103 (2008)

  238. Ramsey, F.: Foundations of mathematics and other logical essays. In: Braithwaite, R.B. (ed.) Collection of Papers Publishded Posthumously. Routledge & P. Kegan, London (1931)

    Google Scholar 

  239. Reiter, R.: Logic and dala bases. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) On closed World Data Bases, pp. 55–76. Plenum Press, New York (1978)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  240. Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 13, 81–132 (1980)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  241. Rescher, N.: The logic of preference. In: Topics in Philosophical Logic, Synthese Library, vol. 17, pp. 287–320. Springer, Berlin (1968)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  242. Rescher, N.: Introduction to Value Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  243. Roberts, F.: Measurement theory, with applications to Decision Making, Utility and the Social Sciences. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  244. Roberts, F.: Computer science and decision theory. Ann. Oper. Res. 163, 209–253 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  245. Roberts, F., Tsoukiàs, A.: Special issue on computer science and decision theory. Ann. Oper. Res. 163, 270 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  246. Rossi, F.: Constraints and preferences: modelling frameworks and multi-agent settings. In: Della Riccia, G., Dubois, D., Kruse, R., Lenz, H. (eds.) Similarities and Preferences, CISM series, pp. 305–320. Springer, Berlin (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  247. Rossi, F., Tsoukiàs, A.: Proceedings of ADT 2009. LNAI 5783. Springer, Berlin (2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  248. Rossi, F., Venable, K., Walsh, T.: mCP nets: representing and reasoning with preferences of multiple agents. In: Proceedings of AAAI’04, pp. 729–734 (2004)

  249. Rossi, F., Venable, K., Walsh, T.: Preferences in constraint satisfaction and optimization. AI Mag. 29, 58–68 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  250. Rossi, F., Venable, K., Walsh, T.: A short introduction to preferences Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Morgan & Claypool (2011)

  251. Roubens, M., Vincke, P.: Preference Modeling. LNEMS 250. Springer, Berlin (1985)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  252. Roy, B.: Partial preference analysis and decision aid: The fuzzy outranking relation concept. In: Bell, D., Keeney, R., Raiffa, H. (eds.) Conflicting Objectives in Decisions, pp. 40–75. Wiley, New York (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  253. Saaty, T.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Planning, Piority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New york (1980)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  254. Saaty, T.L.: An exposition on the ahp in reply to the paper ”remarks on the analytic hierarchy process”. Manag. Sci. 36(3), 259–268 (1990). http://www.jstor.org/stable/2631947

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  255. Salo, A., Keisler, J., Morton, A.: Portfolio Management. Springer, Berlin (2011)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  256. Samuelson, P.: Probability and the attempts to measure utility. Econ. Rev. 1, 117–126 (1950)

    Google Scholar 

  257. Sartor, G.: A formal model of legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 7, 212–226 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  258. Savage, L.: The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York (1954). Second revised edition, 1972

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  259. Schweizer, B., Sclar, A.: Probabilistic Metric Spaces. North Holland, Amsterdam (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  260. Shoham, Y.: A semantical approach to nonmonotonic logics Proceedings of the Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 275–279 (1987)

  261. Shoham, Y.: Nonmonotonic logics: meaning and utility. In: Proceedings of IJCAI’87, pp. 388–393 (1987)

  262. Shoham, Y.: Reasoning About Change. MIT Press, Boston (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  263. Simari, G., Loui, R.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artif. Intell. 53, 125–157 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  264. Sinz, C., Haag, A., Narodytska, N., Walsh, T., Gelle, E., Sabin, M., Junker, U., O’Sullivan, B., Rabiser, R., Dhungana, D., Grünbacher, P., Lehner, K., Federspiel, C., Naus, D.: Configuration. IEEE Intell. Syst. 22(1), 78–90 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  265. Smith, T.: Legal expert systems: discussion of theoretical assumptions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht (1994)

  266. Smyth, B.: Case-based recommendation. In: The Adaptive Web, LNCS 4321, pp. 342–376. Springer, Berlin (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  267. Sycara, K.: Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theor. Decis. 28 (1990)

  268. Tan, Y.H., van der Torre, L.: How to combine ordering and minimizing in a deontic logic based on preferences. In: Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems. Proceedings of the ΔEON’96 Workshop in Computing, pp. 216–232. Springer, Berlin (1996)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  269. Tanguiane, A.S.: Aggregation and Representation of Preferences. Springer, Berlin (1991)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  270. Thomason, R., Horty, J.: Logics for inheritance theory. In: Reinfrank, M., de Kleer, J., Ginsberg, M., Sandewall, E. (eds.) Non-Monotonic Reasoning, LNAI 346, pp. 220–237. Springer, Berlin (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  271. van der Torre, L.: Reasoning about obligations: Defeasibility in preference-based deontic logic. Ph.D. thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam (1997)

  272. Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)

    Google Scholar 

  273. Touretzky, D.S.: A skeptic’s menagerie: conflictors, preemptors, reinstaters, and zombies in nonmonotonic inheritance. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91), pp. 478–483. Morgan Kaufmann (1991)

  274. Touretzky, D.S., Horty, J.F., Thomas, R.H.: A clash of intuitions: the current state of nonmonotonic multiple inheritance systems. In: IJCAI-87, pp. 476–482. Morgan Kaufmann (1987)

  275. Trotter, W.: Combinatorics and partially ordered sets. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1992)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  276. Tsoukiàs, A.: Preference modelling as a reasoning process: a new way to face uncertainty in multiple criteria decision support systems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 55, 309–318 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  277. Tsoukiàs, A.: A first-order, four valued, weakly paraconsistent logic and its relation to rough sets semantics. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 12, 85–108 (2002)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  278. Tsoukiàs, A., Perny, P., Vincke, P.: From concordance/discordance to the modelling of positive and negative reasons in decision aiding. In: Bouyssou, D., Jacquet-Lagrèze, E., Perny, P., Slowinski, R., Vanderpooten, D., Vincke, P. (eds.) Aiding Decisions with Multiple Criteria: Essays in Honour of Bernard Roy, pp. 147–174. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  279. Tsoukiàs, A., Vincke, P.: A new axiomatic foundation of partial comparability. Theor. Decis. 39, 79–114 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  280. Tsoukiàs, A., Vincke, P.: Extended preference structures in MCDA. In: Climaco, J. (ed.) Multicriteria Analysis, pp. 37–50. Springer, Berlin (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  281. Tsoukiàs, A., Vincke, P.: Double threshold orders: a new axiomatization. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 7, 285–301 (1998)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  282. Turunen, E., Öztürk, M., Tsoukiàs, A.: Paraconsistent semantics for pavelka style fuzzysentential logic. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 161, 1926–1940 (2010)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  283. Uckelman, J.: Alice and Bob will fight: the problem of electing a committee in the presence of candidate interdependence. In: Proceedings of (MPREF’10), pp. 73–78 (2010)

  284. van Benthem, J., Girard, P., Roy, O.: Everything else being equal: a modal logic approach to ceteris paribus preferences. J. Philos. Log. 38, 83125 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  285. van Dalen, D.: Logic and Structure. Springer, Berlin (1983)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  286. van Fraassen, B.: The logic of conditional obligation. J. Philos. Log. 1, 417–438 (1972)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  287. van Fraassen, B.: Values and the heart’s command. J. Philos. 70, 5–19 (1973)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  288. Viappiani, P., Boutilier, C.: Regret-based optimal recommendation sets in conversational recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp. 101–108 (2009)

  289. Viappiani, P., Boutilier, C.: Optimal bayesian recommendation sets and myopically optimal choice query sets. In: Proceedings of NIPS’10, pp. 2352–2360 (2010)

  290. Viappiani, P., Kroer, C.: Robust optimization of recommendation sets with the maximin utility criterion. In: Proceedings of ADT’13, pp. 411–424 (2013)

  291. von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of games and economic behaviour, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1947)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  292. von Wright, G.: Deontic logic. Mind 60, 1–15 (1951)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  293. von Wright, G.: An Essay in Modal Logic. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1951)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  294. von Wright, G.: The logic of Preference. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  295. von Wright, G.: Deontic logic and the theory of conditions. In: Hilpinen, R. (ed.) Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, pp. 159–177. Reidel, Dordrecht (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  296. von Wright, G.: The logic of preference reconsidered. Theor. Decis. 3, 140–169 (1972)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  297. Wagstaff, K.L., desJardins, M., Eaton, E.: Modelling and learning user preferences over sets. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 22, 237–268 (2010)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  298. Wang, T., Boutilier, C.: Incremental utility elicitation with the minimax regret decision criterion. In: Proceedings of IJCAI’03, pp. 309–316 (2003)

  299. Wilson, N.: Consistency and constrained optimisation for conditional preferences. In: Proceedings of ECAI’04, pp. 888–894 (2004)

  300. Wilson, N.: Extending CP-nets with stronger conditional preference statements. In: Proceedings of AAAI’04, pp. 735–741 (2004)

  301. Wilson, N.: Efficient inference for expressive comparative preference languages. In: Proceedings of IJCAI’09, pp. 961–966 (2009)

  302. Yaman, F., Walsh, T., Littman, M., desJardins, M.: Learning lexicographic preference models. In: Fürnkranz, J., Hüllermeier, E. (eds.) Preference Learning, pp. 251–272. Springer, Berlin (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  303. Yu, P., Wan, W., Lee, P.: Decision tree modeling for ranking data. In: Fürnkranz, J., Hüllermeier, E. (eds.) Preference Learning, pp. 83–106. Springer, Berlin (2011)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PSL, University Paris Dauphine, CNRS, UMR 7243, LAMSADE, Paris, France

    Gabriella Pigozzi & Alexis Tsoukiàs

  2. CNRS, UMR 7606, LIP6, 75005, Paris, France

    Paolo Viappiani

  3. Sorbonne Universités, UPMC University of Paris 06, UMR 7606, LIP6, 4 Place Jussieu, 75005, Paris, France

    Paolo Viappiani

Authors
  1. Gabriella Pigozzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexis Tsoukiàs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paolo Viappiani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Viappiani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pigozzi, G., Tsoukiàs, A. & Viappiani, P. Preferences in artificial intelligence. Ann Math Artif Intell 77, 361–401 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-015-9475-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-015-9475-5

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

Search

Navigation