Reasoning about general preference relations

Grossi, Davide ORCID: 0000-0002-9709-030X, van der Hoek, Wiebe and Kuijer, Louwe B ORCID: 0000-0001-6696-9023 (2022) Reasoning about general preference relations. Artificial Intelligence, 313. p. 103793.

Text maximality_2021.pdf - Author Accepted Manuscript Download (626kB) | Preview

Abstract

Preference relations are at the heart of many fundamental concepts in artificial intelligence, ranging from utility comparisons, to defeat among strategies and relative plausibility among states, just to mention a few. Reasoning about such relations has been the object of extensive research and a wealth of formalisms exist to express and reason about them. One such formalism is conditional logic, which focuses on reasoning about the “best” alternatives according to a given preference relation. A “best” alternative is normally interpreted as an alternative that is either maximal (no other alternative is preferred to it) or optimal (it is at least as preferred as all other alternatives). And the preference relation is normally assumed to satisfy strong requirements (typically transitivity and some kind of well-foundedness assumption). Here, we generalize this existing literature in two ways. Firstly, in addition to maximality and optimality, we consider two other interpretations of “best”, which we call unmatchedness and acceptability. Secondly, we do not inherently require the preference relation to satisfy any constraints. Instead, we allow the relation to satisfy any combination of transitivity, totality and anti-symmetry. This allows us to model a wide range of situations, including cases where the lack of constraints stems from a modeled agent being irrational (for example, an agent might have preferences that are neither transitive nor total nor anti-symmetric) or from the interaction of perfectly rational agents (for example, a defeat relation among strategies in a game might be anti-symmetric but not total or transitive). For each interpretation of “best” (maximal, optimal, unmatched or acceptable) and each combination of constraints (transitivity, totality and/or anti-symmetry), we study the sets of valid inferences. Specifically, in all but one case we introduce a sound and strongly complete axiomatization, and in the one remaining case we show that no such axiomatization exists.

Item Type:	Article
Depositing User:	Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited:	26 Sep 2022 14:17
Last Modified:	29 Sep 2023 01:30
DOI:	10.1016/j.artint.2022.103793
Related URLs:	Publisher
URI:	https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3165028