Skip to main content

Compact Preference Representation for Boolean Games

  • Conference paper
Book cover PRICAI 2006: Trends in Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI 2006)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4099))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Boolean games, introduced by [15,14], allow for expressing compactly two-players zero-sum static games with binary preferences: an agent’s strategy consists of a truth assignment of the propositional variables she controls, and a player’s preferences is expressed by a plain propositional formula. These restrictions (two-players, zero-sum, binary preferences) strongly limit the expressivity of the framework. While the first two can be easily encompassed by defining the agents’ preferences as an arbitrary n-uple of propositional formulas, relaxing the last one needs Boolean games to be coupled with a propositional language for compact preference representation. In this paper, we consider generalized Boolean games where players’ preferences are expressed within two of these languages: prioritized goals and propositionalized CP-nets.

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 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 239.00
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. Apt, K.R., Rossi, F., Venable, K.B.: CP-nets and Nash equilibria. In: Elsevier (ed.) Proc. CIRAS 2005 (Third International Conference on Computational Intelligence, Robotics and Autonomous Systems), Singapore, December 13-16 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Benferhat, S., Cayrol, C., Dubois, D., Lang, J., Prade, H.: Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In: Proc. of the 13th IJCAI, pp. 640–645 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bonzon, E., Lagasquie-Schiex, M., Lang, J., Zanuttini, B.: Boolean games revisited (2006), available at ftp:ftp.irit.fr/pub/IRIT/RPDMP/ecai06.ps.gz

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boutilier, C., Brafman, R., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H., Poole, D.: Cp-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional Ceteris Paribus preference statements. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 21, 135–191 (2004)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Boutilier, C., Brafman, R., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H., Poole, D.: Preference-based constrained optimization with cp-nets. Computational Intelligence 20(2), 137–157 (2004) Special Issue on Preferences

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Boutilier, C., Brafman, R.I., Hoos, H.H., Poole, D.: Reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. In: Proc. of UAI (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brewka, G.: Preferred subtheorie: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In: Proc. of the 11th IJCAI, pp. 1043–1048 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Coste-Marquis, S., Lang, J., Liberatore, P., Marquis, P.: Expressive power and succinctness of propositional languages for preference representation. In: Proc. of the 9th KR, pp. 203–212 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  9. De Vos, M., Vermeir, D.: Choice logic programs and Nash equilibria in strategic games. In: Flum, J., Rodríguez-Artalejo, M. (eds.) CSL 1999. LNCS, vol. 1683, pp. 266–276. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. 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. Wiley, Chichester (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dunne, P.E., van der Hoek, W.: Representation and complexity in boolean games. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J.A. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 347–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Foo, N., Meyer, T., Brewka, G.: LPOD answer sets and Nash equilibria. In: Maher, M.J. (ed.) ASIAN 2004. LNCS, vol. 3321, pp. 343–351. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Geffner, H.: Default reasoning: causal and conditional theories. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Harrenstein, P.: Logic in Conflict. PhD thesis, Utrecht University (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Harrenstein, P., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.J., Witteveen, C.: Boolean games. In: Proc. of TARK, pp. 287–298 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lang, J.: Logical preference representation and combinatorial vote. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 42, 37–71 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Lehmann, D.: Another perspective on default reasoning. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 15, 61–82 (1995)

    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

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Bonzon, E., Lagasquie-Schiex, MC., Lang, J. (2006). Compact Preference Representation for Boolean Games. In: Yang, Q., Webb, G. (eds) PRICAI 2006: Trends in Artificial Intelligence. PRICAI 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4099. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36668-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36668-3_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-36667-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36668-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics