Advertisement

Abstract

In Classical Decision Theory, preferences and uncertainties of a decision maker (DM) have the quantitative forms of a utility function and a probability distribution. However, a numerical approach for decision making suffers from a knowledge acquisition problem. In this paper a qualitative model for decision making is proposed, where the DM is modeled as the agent with preferences and beliefs about the world. Decision problem is represented by means of Brewka’s logic program with ordered disjunction (LPOD) and a decision making process is a constraint satisfaction problem, where a solution is consistent with a knowledge base and maximally consistent with the DM’s beliefs and preferences.

Keywords

knowledge representation logic programming qualitative decision making 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aumann, R.: Utility Theory Without the Complet. Axiom. Econometrica 3, 445–462 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonet, B., Geffner, H.: Arguing for decisions: a qualitative model of decision making. In: Proc. UAI 1996, USA, pp. 98–105 (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boutilier, C.: Towards a logic for qualitative decision theory. In: Proc. KR 1994, Germany, pp. 75–86 (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brewka, G.: Logic Programs with Ordered Disjunction. In: Proc. AAAI, Canada, pp. 100–105 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewka, G.: Implementing Ordered Disjunction Using Answer Set Solvers for Normal Programs. In: Flesca, S., Greco, S., Leone, N., Ianni, G. (eds.) JELIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2424, pp. 444–455. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewka, G.: Answer Sets and Qualitative Decision Making, synthesis (to appear 2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Doyle, J., Thomason, R.: Background to qualitative decision theory. AI Mag. 20, 55–68 (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Prade, H., Patrice, P.: Qualitative Decision Theory: From Savage’s Axioms to Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Journal of the ACM 49, 455–495 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dubois, D., Le Berre, D., Prade, D., Sabbadin, R.: Logical representation and computation of optimal decisions in a qualitative setting. In: Proc. AAAI 1998, USA, pp. 588–593 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eiter, T., et al.: The KR System dlv. In: Proc. KR 1998, Italy, pp. 406–417 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Disjunctive Databases. New generation computing 9, 365–385 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lang, J.: Conditional desires and utilities: an alternative logical approach to qualitative decision theory. In: Proc. ECAI 1996, Hungary, pp. 318–322 (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lehman, D.: What is qualitative? A framework for quantitative and qualitative decision theory. In: AAAI Spring Symposium, USA, pp. 65–70 (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lifschitz, V.: Answer set programming and plan generation. AI 138, 39–54 (2002)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Niemelä, I., Simons, P.: Smodels-an implementation of the stable model and well-founded semantics for normal logic programs. In: Fuhrbach, U., Dix, J., Nerode, A. (eds.) LPNMR 1997. LNCS, vol. 1265, pp. 420–429. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Savage, L.: The Foundations of Statistics. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, NY: Dover (1954)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tan, S.W., Pearl, J.: Qualitative Decision Theory. Proc. AAAI 1994, USA, pp. 70–75 (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1944)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafał Graboś
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of LeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations