Skip to main content

Propositional Distances and Preference Representation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2001)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2143))

Abstract

Distances between possible worlds play an important role in logic-based knowledge representation (especially in belief change, reasoning about action, belief merging and similarity-based reasoning). We show here how they can be used for representing in a compact and intuitive way the preference profile of an agent, following the principle that given a goal G, then the closer a world w to a model of G, the better w. We give an integrated logical framework for preference representation which handles weighted goals and distances to goals in a uniform way. Then we argue that the widely used Hamming distance (which merely counts the number of propositional symbols assigned a different value by two worlds) is generally too rudimentary and too syntax-sensitive to be suitable in real applications; therefore, we propose a new family of distances, based on Choquet integrals, in which the Hamming distance has exactly a position very similar to that of the arithmetic mean in the class of Choquet integrals for multi-criteria decision making.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. O. Bailleux, P. Marquis. DISTANCE-SAT: complexity and algorithms. Proceedings of AAAI’99, pages 642–647, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  2. S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, S. Kaci and H. Prade. Encoding information fusion in possibilistic logic: a general framework for rational syntactic merging. Proceedings of ECAI’2000, 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  3. I Blochand J. Lang. Towards mathematical morphologics. Proceedings of IPMU’2000.

    Google Scholar 

  4. B. Benhamou, L. Sais and P. Siegel. Two proof procedures for a cardinality-based language in propositional calculus. Proceedings of STACS’94.

    Google Scholar 

  5. C. Cayrol. Un mod`ele logique pour le raisonnement révisable (in French). Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle 6, 255–284, Hermés, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  6. M. Dalal. Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: preliminary report. Proceedings of AAAI’88, p. 475–479, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  7. D. Dubois, J. Lang and H. Prade. Possibilistic logic. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming (D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger, J.A. Robinson, (eds.), Vol. 3, 439–513, Oxford University Press. 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  8. F. Dupin de Saint-Cyr, J. Lang and T. Schiex., Penalty logic and its link with Dempster-Shafer theory, UAI’94, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  9. K. D. Forbus. Introducing actions into qualitative simulation. Proc. IJCAI’89, 1273–1278.

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. Konieczny, R. Pino-Pérez, On the logic of merging. Proceedings of KR’98, 488–498, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  11. S. Konieczny, R. Pino-Pérez. Merging with integrity constraints. Proceedings of EC-SQARU’99, 233–244, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1638, Springer Verlag, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  12. C. Lafage. Représentation logique de préférences. Application á la décision de groupe. Thése de l’Unievsrté Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  13. C. Lafage, J. Lang. Logical representation of preferences for group decision making. Proceedings of KR’2000, 457–468, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. Lang. Conditional desires and utilities-an alternative approach to qualitative decision theory. Proceedings of ECAI’96, 318–322, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  15. P. Liberatore and M. Schaerf. Arbitration: a commutative operator for belief revision. Proceedings of the World Conference on the Fundamentals of Artificial Research, 1995, 217–228.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J. Lin. Integration of weighted knowledge bases. Artificial Intelligence 83 (1996), 363–378.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. P. Marquis and N. Porquet. Decomposing propositional knowledge bases through topics (extended abstract). Personal communication.

    Google Scholar 

  18. T. Murofushi and M. Sugeno. An interpretation of fuzzy measures and the Choquet integral as an integral with respect to a fuzzy measure, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 29 (1989), 201–227.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. D. Schmeidler. Integral representation without additivity. Proc. Americ. Math. Soc. 97 (1986), 255–261.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. S.-W. Tan and J. Pearl, Specification and evaluation of preferences for planning under uncertainty, Proc. KR’94.

    Google Scholar 

  21. L. van der Torre and E. Weydert. Parameters for utilitarian desires in a qualitative decision theory, Applied Intelligence, 2001, to appear.

    Google Scholar 

  22. R.R. Yager, On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 18, p. 183–190, 1988.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lafage, C., Lang, J. (2001). Propositional Distances and Preference Representation. In: Benferhat, S., Besnard, P. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2143. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44652-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44652-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42464-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44652-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics