Twenty-Five Years of Preferred Subtheories

  • Jérôme Lang

Abstract

In the seminal paper [6], Gerd Brewka argued that ranking a set of default rules without prerequisites, and selecting extensions according to a lexicographic refinement of the inclusion ordering proves to be a natural, simple and efficient way of dealing with the multiple extension (or “subtheories”) problem. This natural idea has been reused, discussed, revisited, reinvented, adapted many times in the AI community and beyond. Preferred subtheories do not only have an interest in default reasoning, but also in reasoning about time, reasoning by analogy, reasoning with compactly represented preferences, judgment aggregation, and voting. They have several variants (but arguably not so many). In this short paper I will say as much as I can about preferred subtheories in sixteen pages.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams, E.W.: The Logic of Conditionals. Reiter, Dordrecht (1975)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asher, N., Lang, J.: When nonmonotonicity comes from distances. In: KI-94: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Proceedings of the 18th Annual German Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Saarbrücken, Germany, September 18-23, pp. 308–318 (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benferhat, S., Cayrol, C., Dubois, D., Lang, J., Prade, H.: Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Chambéry, France, August 28-September 3, pp. 640–647 (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Some syntactic approaches to the handling of inconsistent knowledge bases: A comparative study. Part 2: The Prioritized Case 24, 473–511 (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonzon, E., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C., Lang, J.: Dependencies between players in boolean games. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 50(6), 899–914 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewka, G.: Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, MI, USA, pp. 1043–1048 (August 1989)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brewka, G.: Reasoning about priorities in default logic. In: Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, WA, USA, July 31-August 4, vol. 2, pp. 940–945 (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brewka, G.: A rank based description language for qualitative preferences. In: Proceedings of the 16th Eureopean Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2004, including Prestigious Applicants of Intelligent Systems, PAIS 2004, Valencia, Spain, August 22-27, pp. 303–307 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Non-monotonic syntax-based entailment: A classification of consequence relations. In: Froidevaux, C., Kohlas, J. (eds.) ECSQARU 1995. LNCS, vol. 946, pp. 107–114. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M., Schiex, T.: Nonmonotonic reasoning: From complexity to algorithms. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 22(3-4), 207–236 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cayrol, C., Royer, V., Saurel, C.: Management of preferences in assumption-based reasoning. In: Valverde, L., Bouchon-Meunier, B., Yager, R.R. (eds.) IPMU 1992. LNCS, vol. 682, pp. 13–22. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Lang, J., Liberatore, P., Marquis, P.: Expressive power and succinctness of propositional languages for preference representation. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference (KR 2004), Whistler, Canada, June 2-5, pp. 203–212 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Marquis, P.: On stratified belief base compilation. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 42(4), 399–442 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Delgrande, J.P., Dubois, D., Lang, J.: Iterated revision as prioritized merging. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Lake District of the United Kingdom, June 2-5, pp. 210–220 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dubois, D., Fargier, H.: A unified framework for order-of-magnitude confidence relations. In: Proceedings of the 20th Conference in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI 2004, Banff, Canada, July 7-11, pp. 138–145 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Prade, H.: Refinements of the maximin approach to decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dubois, D., Lang, J., Prade, H.: Inconsistency in Possibilistic Knowledge Bases: To Live with It or Not Live with It. In: Fuzzy logic for the management of uncertainty, pp. 335–351. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Everaere, P., Konieczny, S., Marquis, P.: Counting votes for aggregating judgments. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2014, pp. 1177–1184 (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fargier, H., Lang, J., Schiex, T.: Selecting preferred solutions in Fuzzy Constraint Satisfaction Problems. In: Proc. of the 1st European Congress on Fuzzy and Intelligent Technologies (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feldmann, R., Brewka, G., Wenzel, S.: Planning with prioritized goals. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Lake District of the United Kingdom, June 2-5, pp. 503–514 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Geffner, H.: Default Reasoning: Causal and Conditional Theories. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lang, J.: Logical preference representation and combinatorial vote. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 42(1-3), 37–71 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lang, J., Pigozzi, G., Slavkovik, M., van der Torre, L.: Judgment aggregation rules based on minimization. In: TARK, pp. 238–246 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lehmann, D.: Another perspective on default reasoning. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 15(1), 61–82 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nebel, B.: Belief revision and default reasoning: Syntax-based approaches. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1991), Cambridge, MA, USA, April 22-25, pp. 417–428 (1991)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nehring, K., Pivato, M.: Majority rule in the absence of a majority. MPRA Paper 46721, University Library of Munich, Germany (May 2013), http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra//46721.html
  27. 27.
    Pearl, J.: System Z: A natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, Pacific Grove, CA, pp. 121–135 (March 1990)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Poole, D.: A logical framework for default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 36(1), 27–47 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rescher, N.: Hypothetical Reasoning. Studies in Logic, North-Holland (1964)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tideman, T.N.: Independence of clones as a criterion for voting rules. Social Choice and Welfare 4, 185–206 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jérôme Lang
    • 1
  1. 1.CNRS-LAMSADEUniversité Paris-DauphineFrance

Personalised recommendations