Skip to main content

Computing Utility from Weighted Description Logic Preference Formulas

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 5948))

Abstract

We propose a framework to compute the utility of a proposal w.r.t. a preference set in a negotiation process. In particular, we refer to preferences expressed as weighted formulas in a decidable fragment of First Order Logic (FOL). Although here we tailor our approach for Description Logics endowed with disjunction, all the results keep their validity in any decidable fragment of FOL. DLs offer expressivity advantages over propositional representations, and allow us to relax the often unrealistic assumption of additive independence among attributes. We provide suitable definitions of the problem and present algorithms to compute utility in our setting. We also study complexity issues of our approach and demonstrate its usefulness with a running example in a multiattribute negotiation scenario.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gonzales, C., Perny, P.: GAI networks for utility elicitation. In: Ninth Intl. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Whistler, BC, Canada, pp. 224–234 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bacchus, F., Grove, A.: Graphical models for preference and utility. In: Eleventh Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, pp. 3–10 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

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

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Engel, Y., Wellman, M.P.: CUI networks: A graphical representation for conditional utility independence. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 31, 83–112 (2008)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baader, F., Hanschke, P.: A Scheme for Integrating Concrete Domains into Concept Languages. Technical Report Tech. Rep. RR-91-10 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pinkas, G.: Propositional non-monotonic reasoning and inconsistency in symmetric neural networks. In: Twelfth Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 525–531 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lafage, C., Lang, J.: Logical representation of preferences for group decision making. In: Seventh Intl. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 457–468 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., Lang, J.: Expressive power of weighted propositional formulas for cardinal preference modelling. In: Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 145–152 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ragone, A., Di Noia, T., Di Sciascio, E., Donini, F.: A logic-based framework to compute Pareto agreements in one-shot bilateral negotiation. In: Seventeenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 230–234 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ragone, A., Di Noia, T., Di Sciascio, E., Donini, F.M.: Description logics for multi-issue bilateral negotiation with incomplete information. In: Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 477–482 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ragone, A., Di Noia, T., Di Sciascio, E., Donini, F.M.: Alternating-offers protocol for multi-issue bilateral negotiation in semantic-enabled marketplaces. In: Aberer, K., Choi, K.-S., Noy, N., Allemang, D., Lee, K.-I., Nixon, L.J.B., Golbeck, J., Mika, P., Maynard, D., Mizoguchi, R., Schreiber, G., Cudré-Mauroux, P. (eds.) ASWC 2007 and ISWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 395–408. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Lukasiewicz, T., Schellhase, J.: Variable-strength conditional preferences for matchmaking in description logics. In: KR, pp. 164–174 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Baader, F., Hollunder, B.: \(\mathcal{KRIS}\): \(\mathcal{K}\)nowledge \(\mathcal{R}\)epresentation and \(\mathcal{I}\)nference \(\mathcal{S}\)ystem. SIGART Bulletin 2(3), 8–14 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Papadimitriou, C.H., Steiglitz, K.: Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1982)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Fishburn, P.C.: Interdependence and additivity in multivariate, unidimensional expected utility theory. International Economic Review 8, 335–342 (1967)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ragone, A., Di Noia, T., Donini, F.M., Di Sciascio, E., Wellman, M.P. (2010). Computing Utility from Weighted Description Logic Preference Formulas. In: Baldoni, M., Bentahar, J., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Lloyd, J. (eds) Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies VII. DALT 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5948. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11355-0_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11355-0_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-11354-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-11355-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics