Abstract
Users’ preferences show up in different formats: quantitative vs. qualitative, conditional vs. unconditional, prioritized vs. flat, etc. In fact, depending on the reason, it could be more natural to express preferences in one a format or another. Thus, it became a challenge for researchers to adequately capture many varieties of preference forms. To this end, artificial intelligence has seen a number of compact languages for preference representation (cf. Chapter 3). However, each language has not been conceived to explicitly and naturally capture all forms of preferences. Instead, it focuses on a particular specification of preferences. It induces a preference relation over the set of outcomes which is a partial or total (pre)order.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Representing default rules in possibilistic logic. In: Nebel, B., Rich, C., Swartout, W.R. (eds.), 3rd International Conference of Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 673-684. Morgan Kaufmann, (1992)
Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Kaci, S., Prade, H.: Bridging logical, comparative and graphical possibilistic representation frameworks. In: Benferhat, S., Besnard, P. (eds.), 6th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty, pp. 422-431. Springer, (2001)
Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Kaci, S., Prade, H.: Possibilistic logic representation of preferences:relating prioritized goals and satisfaction levels expressions. In: van Harmelen, F. (eds.), 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 685-689. IOS Press, (2002)
Benferhat, S., Kaci, S.: A possibilistic logic handling of strong preferences. In: Smith, M.H., Gruver, W.A. (eds.), International Fuzzy Systems Association, pp. 962-967. (2001)
Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C.: Introducing variable importance tradeoffs into CP-nets. In: Darwiche, A., Friedman, N. (eds.), 18th International Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 69-76. Morgan Kaufmann, (2002)
Brewka, G., Niemel¨a, I., Truszczynski, M.: Answer set optimization. In: Gottlob, G., Walsh, T. (eds.), 18th Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 867-872. Morgan Kaufmann, (2003)
Coste-Marquis, S., Lang, J., Liberatore, P., Marquis, P.: Expressive power and succinctness of propositional languages for preference representation. In: Dubois, D., Welty, C.A., Williams, M.A. (eds.), 9th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 203-212. AAAI Press, (2004)
Domshlak, C., Rossi, F., Venable, K.B., Walsh, T.: Reasoning about soft constraints and conditional preferences: complexity results and approximation techniques. In: Gottlob, G., Walsh, T. (eds.), 18th Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 215-220. Morgan Kaufmann, (2003)
Goldsmith, J., Lang, J., Truszczynski, M.,Wilson, N.: The computational complexity of dominance and consistency in CP-nets. In: Kaelbling, L.P., Saffiotti, A. (eds.), 19th Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 144-149. Professional Book Center, (2005)
Kaci, S., Prade, H.: Mastering the processing of preferences by using symbolic priorities. In: Ghallab, M. Spyropoulos, C.D., Fakotakis, N., Avouris, N.M. (eds.), 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 376-380. IOS Press, (2008)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kaci, S. (2011). Making Hidden Priorities Explicit. In: Working with Preferences: Less Is More. Cognitive Technologies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17280-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17280-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-17279-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-17280-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)