Skip to main content

Towards Decision Making via Expressive Probabilistic Ontologies

  • 1261 Accesses

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNAI,volume 9346)

Abstract

We propose a framework for automated multi-attribute decision making, employing the probabilistic non-monotonic description logics proposed by Lukasiewicz in 2008. Using this framework, we can model artificial agents in decision-making situation, wherein background knowledge, available alternatives and weighted attributes are represented via probabilistic ontologies. It turns out that extending traditional utility theory with such description logics, enables us to model decision-making problems where probabilistic ignorance and default reasoning plays an important role. We provide several decision functions using the notions of expected utility and probability intervals, and study their properties.

Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/.

  2. 2.

    It is also called preference-indifference relation, since it is the union of strict preference and indifference relation.

  3. 3.

    By convention, objects are written with lower case.

  4. 4.

    Note that T is not used to denote a classical TBox anymore but rather the whole classical knowledge base, TBox and ABox.

  5. 5.

    See Proposition 4.8 in [13].

  6. 6.

    See Proposition 4.9 in [13].

  7. 7.

    Alternatively, \(\mathcal {U}\) can be studied in two partition, that is, the set of pairs with non-negative (denoted \(\mathcal {U}^+\)) and negative weights (denoted \(\mathcal {U}^-\)). In extreme cases, \(\mathcal {U} = \mathcal {U}^+\) when \(\mathcal {U}^-= \emptyset \) (similarly for \(\mathcal {U} = \mathcal {U}^+\)).

  8. 8.

    Recall that we concern ourselves with desirable attributes, i.e., weights are non-negative.

  9. 9.

    This is done via Lehmann’s lexicographic entailment; in this particular example z-partition is \((P_0, P_1)\) where \(P_0 = \{(\lnot \textit{Desirable} | \exists \textit{hasHotel.FiveStarHotel})[1,1]\)} and \(P_1 = \{(\textit{Desirable} | \exists \textit{hasHotel.FiveStarHotel})[1,1]\}\) that is, \((T, P) \cup \textit{BadFamedFiveStar}\textit{Hotel}(\textit{meridian})\mid \mid \!\sim ^{lex} \lnot \textit{Desirable} (\textit{trip1})\).

  10. 10.

    Note that this definition essentially coincides with that choice functions in the imprecise probability literature [8], with the exception that it is allowed to return an empty set.

  11. 11.

    http://protege.stanford.edu/.

References

  1. Bienvenu, M., Lang, J., Wilson, N.: From preference logics to preference languages, and back. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles and Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Boutilier, C.: Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles and Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., Lang, J.: Expressive power of weighted propositional formulas for cardinal preference modeling. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR (2006)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., Wang, K.: A classification and survey of preference handling approaches in nonmonotonic reasoning. Comput. Intell. 20(2), 308–334 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Ellsberg, D.: Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Q. J. Econ. 75, 643–669 (1961)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Fishburn, P.C.: Utility Theory for Decision Making. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co., Huntington, New York (1969)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Huntley, N., Hable, R., Troffaes, M.C.M.: Decision making. In: Augustin, T., Coolen, F.P.A., de Cooman, G., Troffaes, M.C.M. (eds.) Introduction to Imprecise Probabilities, pp. 190–206. Wiley, Chichester (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Reasoning with various kinds of preferences: logic, non-monotonicity, and algorithms. Ann. OR 163(1), 89–114 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

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

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Lafage, C., Lang, J.: Logical representation of preferences for group decision making. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles and Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR, San Francisco (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Levi, I.: The Enterprise of Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lukasiewicz, T.: Expressive probabilistic description logics. Artif. Intell. 172(6–7), 852–883 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Lukasiewicz, T., Martinez, M.V., Simari, G.I.: Probabilistic preference logic networks. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence ECAI (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Di Noia, T., Lukasiewicz, T.: Combining CP-nets with the power of ontologies. In: AAAI (Late-Breaking Developments) (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ragone, A., Di Noia, T., Donini, F.M., Di Sciascio, E., Wellman, M.P.: Computing utility from weighted description logic preference formulas. In: Baldoni, M., Bentahar, J., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Lloyd, J. (eds.) DALT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5948, pp. 158–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Ragone, A., Di Noia, T., Donini, F.M., Di Sciascio, E., Wellman, M.P.: Weighted description logics preference formulas for multiattribute negotiation. In: Godo, L., Pugliese, A. (eds.) SUM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5785, pp. 193–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Straccia, U.: Multi criteria decision making in fuzzy description logics: a first step. In: Velásquez, J.D., Ríos, S.A., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES 2009, Part I. LNCS, vol. 5711, pp. 78–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Uckelman, J., Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., Lang, J.: Representing utility functions via weighted goals. Math. Log. Q. 55(4), 341–361 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erman Acar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

Consistency, Lexicographic and Logical Consequence. A probabilistic interpretation Pr verifies a conditional constraint \((\psi |\phi )[l, u]\) iff \(Pr(\phi ) = 1\) and \(Pr(\psi ) \models (\psi |\phi )[l, u]\). Moreover, Pr falsifies \((\psi |\phi )[l,u]\) iff \(Pr(\phi ) = 1\) and \(Pr(\psi ) \not \models (\psi |\phi )[l, u]\). A set of conditional constraints \(\mathcal {F}\) tolerates a conditional constraint \((\psi |\phi )[l,u]\) under a classical knowledge base T, iff there is model Pr of \(T \cup \mathcal {F}\) that verifies \((\psi |\phi )[l,u]\) (i.e., \(Pr \models T \cup \mathcal {F} \cup \{(\psi | \phi )[l, u], (\phi |\top )[1, 1]\}\)). A PTBox \(PT = (T,P)\) is consistent iff T is satisfiable, and there exists an ordered partition \((P_0,\dots ,P_k)\) of P such that each \(P_i\) (where \(i \in \{0, \dots ,k\}\)) is the set of all \(F \in P \backslash (P_0 \cup \dots \cup P_{i-1})\) that are tolerated under T by \(P \backslash (P_0 \cup \dots \cup P_{i-1})\). Following [13], we note that such ordered partition of PT is unique if it exists, and is called z -partition. A probabilistic knowledge base \(KB = (T , P , (P_o )_{o\in \mathbf I _P)}\) is consistent iff \(PT = (T , P )\) is consistent, and for every probabilistic individuals \(o \in \mathbf I _P\), there is a Pr such that \(Pr \models T \cup P_o\).

For probabilistic interpretations Pr and \(Pr'\), Pr is lexicographically preferable (or lex-preferable) to \(Pr'\) iff there exists some \(i \in \{ 0, \dots ,k \}\) such that \(|\{ F \in P_i \mid Pr \models F\}| > | \{ F \in P_i | Pr' \models F \}|\) and \(|\{F \in P_j \mid Pr \models F \}| = | \{ F \in P_j \mid Pr' \models F\}|\) for all \(i < j \le k\). A probabilistic interpretation Pr is a lexicographically minimal (or lex-minimal) model of \(T \cup \mathcal {F}\) iff \(Pr \models T \cup \mathcal {F}\) and there is no \(Pr'\) such that \( Pr' \models T \cup \mathcal {F}\) and \(Pr'\) is lex-preferable to Pr. A conditional constraint \((\psi | \phi )[l,u]\) is a lexicographic consequence (or lex-consequence) of a set of conditional constraints \(\mathcal {F}\) under a PTBox PT (or \(\mathcal {F} \mid \mid \!\sim ^{lex} (\psi |\phi )[l,u]\)) under PT, iff \(Pr(\psi ) \in [l,u]\) for every lex-minimal model Pr of \(T \cup \mathcal {F} \cup \{(\phi |\top )[1, 1]\}\). Moreover, \(PT \mid \mid \!\sim ^{lex} F\), iff \(\emptyset \mid \mid \!\sim ^{lex} F\) under PT. Note that the notion of lex-consequence faithfully generalizes the classical class subsumption. That is, given a consistent PTBox \(PT = (T, P)\), a set of conditional constraints \(\mathcal {F}\), and c-concepts \(\phi \) and \(\psi \), if \(T \models \phi \sqsubseteq \psi \), then \(\mathcal {F}\mid \mid \!\sim ^{lex }(\psi |\phi )[1, 1]\) under PT.

Furthermore, we say that \((\psi | \phi )[l, u]\) is a tight lexicographic consequence (or tight lex-consequence) of \(\mathcal {F}\) under PT, denoted \(F \mid \mid \!\sim ^{lex}_{tight} (\psi |\phi )[l,u]\) under PT, iff \(l= \inf \{ Pr(\psi ) \mid Pr \mid \mid \!\sim ^{lex} T \cup \mathcal {F} \cup \{ (\phi | \top ) [1,1]\}\) and \(u= \sup \{ Pr(\psi ) \mid Pr \mid \mid \!\sim ^{lex} T \cup \mathcal {F} \cup \{ (\phi | \top ) [1,1]\}\). Moreover, \(PT \mid \mid \!\sim ^{lex}_{tight} F\) iff \(\emptyset \mid \mid \!\sim ^{lex} F\). Note that \([l,u] = [1, 0]\) (empty interval) when there is no such model. For a probabilistic knowledge base \(KB = (T,P, (P_o)_{o \in \mathbf I _P} )\), \(KB \mid \mid \!\sim ^{lex} F\) where F is a conditional constraint for \(o \in \mathbf I _P\) iff \(P_o \mid \mid \!\sim ^{lex} F\) under (T, P). Moreover, \(KB \mid \mid \!\sim ^{lex}_{tight} F\) iff \(P_o \mid \mid \!\sim ^{lex} _{tight} F\) under (TP). A conditional constraint \((\psi | \phi )[l,u]\) is a logical consequence of \(T \cup \mathcal {F}\) (i.e., \(T \cup F\models (\psi |\phi )[l,u]\)) iff each model of \(T \cup \mathcal {F}\) is also a model of \((\psi |\phi )[l,u]\). Furthermore, \((\psi |\phi )[l,u]\) is a tight logical consequence of \(T \cup F\) (i.e., \(T \cup \mathcal {F} \models _{tight} (\psi |\phi )[l,u]\), iff \(l= \inf \{ Pr(\psi |\phi ) \mid Pr \models T \cup \mathcal {F} \text { and } Pr(\phi ) > 0\}\) and \(u= \sup \{ Pr(\psi |\phi ) \mid Pr \models T \cup \mathcal {F} \text { and } Pr(\phi ) > 0\}\). Given a PTBox \(PT = (T, P)\), \(Q \subseteq P\) is lexicographically preferable (or lex-preferable) to \(Q' \subseteq P\) iff there exists some \(i \in {0, \dots , k}\) such that \(|Q \cap P_i | > |Q' \cap P_i |\) and \(|Q \cap P_j | = |Q' \cap P_j|\) for all \(i < j\le k\), where \((P_0,\ldots ,P_k)\) is the z-partition of PT. Q is lexicographically minimal (or lex-minimal) in a set S of subsets of P iff \(Q \in S\) and no \(Q' \in S\) is lex-preferable to Q. Furthermore, let \(\mathcal {F}\) be a set of conditional constraints, and \(\phi \) and \(\psi \) be two concepts, then a set \(\mathcal {Q}\) of lexicographically minimal subsets of P exists such that \(F \mid \mid \!\sim ^{lex} (\psi |\phi )[l, u]\) under PT iff \(T \cup Q \cup \mathcal {F} \cup {(\phi |\top )[1, 1]} \models (\psi |\top )[l, u]\) for all \(Q \in \mathcal {Q}\). This is extended to tight case lex-consequence.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Acar, E., Thorne, C., Stuckenschmidt, H. (2015). Towards Decision Making via Expressive Probabilistic Ontologies. In: Walsh, T. (eds) Algorithmic Decision Theory. ADT 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9346. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23114-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23114-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23113-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23114-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics