Actions, Preferences, and Logic Programs

  • Aaron Hunter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7310)


An agent may have preferences over states and an agent may have preferences over actions. In this paper, we explore the connection between these distinct forms of preference, in the context where action effects are given by a transition system. We illustrate that preferences over actions can not always be reduced to preferences over states, even under very general conditions. It is possible, however, to define a natural notion of consistency between the two forms of preference. Moreover, it is possible to precisely specify which preferences over actions can be expressed in terms of preferences over states. We encode preferences over actions in a logic programming framework that allows us to automatically determine when preferences over actions can be reduced to preferences over states. Our framework facilitates the high-level analysis of preferences by making conflicts explicit. We conclude with a general discussion of conflicting preferences, and we suggest some topics for future work.


Logic Program Transition System Prefer State Action Policy Belief Revision 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alchourron, C., Gardenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet functions for contraction and revision. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2), 510–530 (1985)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bradley, R.: The kinematics of belief and desire. Synthese 156(3), 513–535 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Darwiche, A., Pearl, J.: On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artificial Intelligence 89(1-2), 1–29 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Freund, M.: On the revision of preferences and rational inference processes. Artificial Intelligence 152(1), 105–137 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freund, M.: Revising preferences and choices. Journal of Mathematical Economics 41, 229–251 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science 3(16), 1–16 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grove, A.: Two modellings for theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic 17(2) (1988)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hansson, S.O.: Changes in preferences. Theory and Decision 38, 1–28 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hansson, S.O.: The structure of values and norms. Cambridge University Press (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halpern, J.: Defining relative likelihood inpartially ordered preferential structures. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 7, 1–24 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horty, J.: Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hunter, A., Delgrande, J.P.: An Action Description Language for Iterated Belief Change. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lang, J., van der Torre, L., Weydert, E.: Utilitarian Desires. International Journal on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 5, 329–363 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lang, J., van der Torre, L.: From belief change to preference change. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lifschitz, V., Turner, H.: Representing Transition Systems by Logic Programs. In: Gelfond, M., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G. (eds.) LPNMR 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1730, pp. 92–106. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mitchell, T.: Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Benthem, J.: Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 17, 129–156 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese Library 337. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    von Wright, H.H.: The logic of preference. Edinburgh University Press (1963)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aaron Hunter
    • 1
  1. 1.British Columbia Institute of TechnologyBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations