Goal-Based Qualitative Preference Systems

  • Wietske Visser
  • Koen V. Hindriks
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7784)


Goals are not only used to identify desired states or outcomes, but may also be used to derive qualitative preferences between outcomes. We show that Qualitative Preference Systems (QPSs) provide a general, flexible and succinct way to represent preferences based on goals. If the domain is not Boolean, preferences are often based on orderings on the possible values of variables. We show that QPSs that are based on such multi-valued criteria can be translated into equivalent goal-based QPSs that are just as succinct. Finally, we show that goal-based QPSs allow for more fine-grained updates than their multi-valued counterparts. These results show that goals are very expressive as a representation of qualitative preferences and moreover, that there are certain advantages of using goals instead of multi-valued criteria.


Qualitative multi-criteria preferences goals 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wellman, M.P., Doyle, J.: Preferential semantics for goals. In: Proc. AAAI, pp. 698–703 (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boutilier, C.: Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In: Proc. KR, pp. 75–86 (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Visser, W., Aydoğan, R., Hindriks, K.V., Jonker, C.M.: A framework for qualitative multi-criteria preferences. In: Proc. ICAART (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brewka, G.: A rank based description language for qualitative preferences. In: Proc. ECAI, pp. 303–307 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boutilier, C., Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H.H., Poole, D.: CP-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 21, 135–191 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andréka, H., Ryan, M., Schobbens, P.Y.: Operators and laws for combining preference relations. Journal of Logic and Computation 12(1), 13–53 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Von Wright, G.H.: The Logic of Preference: An Essay. Edinburgh University Press (1963)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Visser, W., Hindriks, K.V., Jonker, C.M.: Interest-based preference reasoning. In: Proc. ICAART, pp. 79–88 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keeney, R.L.: Analysis of preference dependencies among objectives. Operations Research 29(6), 1105–1120 (1981)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., Lang, J.: Expressive power of weighted propositional formulas for cardinal preference modelling. In: Proc. KR (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wietske Visser
    • 1
  • Koen V. Hindriks
    • 1
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 1
  1. 1.Interactive Intelligence GroupDelft University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations