Dynamic Decision-Making in Logic Programming and Game Theory

  • Marina De Vos
  • Dirk Vermeir
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2557)

Abstract

We present a framework for decision making with circumstance-dependent preferences and decisions. This formalism, called Ordered Choice Logic Programming, allows decisions that comprise multiple alternatives, which become available only when a choice between them is forced. The skeptical semantics is based on answer sets for which we provide a fixpoint characterization and a bottom-up algorithm. OCLPs can be used to represent and extend game theory concepts. We demonstrate that OCLPs allow an elegant translation of finite extensive games with perfect information such that the c-answer sets correspond to the Nash equilibria of the game. These equilibria are not player-deterministic, in the sense that a single player, given the other players’ actions, could rationally leave an equilibrium state by changing her action profile. Therefor cautious Nash equilibria are introduced as the answer sets of the transformed game.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AAP+98]
    José Júlio Alferes, Leite J. A., Luís Moniz Pereira, Halina Przymusinska, and Teodor C. Przymusinski. Dynamic logic programming. In Cohn et al. [CSS98], pages 98–111.Google Scholar
  2. [BE99]
    Gerhard Brewka and Thomas Eiter. Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs. Artificial Intelligence, 109(1–2):297–356, April 1999.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [BLR98]
    Francesco Buccafurri, Nicola Leone, and Pasquale Rullo. Disjunctive ordered logic: Semantics and expressiveness. In Cohn et al. [CSS98], pages 418–431.Google Scholar
  4. [Bre96]
    Gerhard Brewka. Well-Founded Semantics for Extended Logic Programs with Dynamic Preferences. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 4:19–36, 1996.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. [CSS98]
    Anthony G. Cohn, Lenhard K. Schubert, and Stuart C. Shapiro, editors. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 1998. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  6. [DVV99]
    Marina DeVos and Dirk Vermeir. On the Role of Negation in Choice Logic Programs. In Michael Gelfond, Nicola Leone, and Gerald Pfeifer, editors, Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning Conference (LPNMR’99), volume 1730 of LNAI, pages 236–246, 1999. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. [DVV00]
    Marina DeVos and Dirk Vermeir. A Logic for Modelling Decision Making with Dynamic Preferences. In Proceedings of the Logic in Artificial Intelligence (Jelia2000) workshop, number 1999 in LNAI, pages 391–406, 2000. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. [Lif00]
    Vladimir Lifschitz. Answer set programming and plan generation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence, page to appear, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. [LV90]
    Els Laenens and Dirk Vermeir. A Fixpoint Semantics of Ordered Logic, Journal of Logic and Computation, 1(2), pp. 159–185, 1990.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [OR96]
    Martin J. Osborne and Ariel Rubinstein. A Course in Game Theory. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusets, London, England, third edition, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. [SI96]
    Chiaki Sakama and Katsumi Inoue. Representing Priorities in Logic Programs. In Michael Maher, editor, Proceedings of the 1996 Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 82–96, 1996. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marina De Vos
    • 1
  • Dirk Vermeir
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceVrije Universiteit Brussel, VUBBrussel
  2. 2.Dept of Computer ScienceUniversity of BathBath

Personalised recommendations