This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

Pramod Parajuli

2011

Preference Logic Pramod Parajuli, 2011

1

Preference Logic Pramod Parajuli, 2011

2

Sorite's Paradox: C

0

~C

1

~C

2

~…~C

997

~C

998

~C

999

Solution: use of ‘Just Noticeable Dierence’ ( JND)

C

i

`C

j

i, u(C

i

)-u(C

j

) ` δ

δ > 0

C

0

~C

1

~C

2

C

997

~C

998

~C

999

Preferences are states of mind whereas choices are actions.

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

3

The problem domain

! Optimal solutions are dicult to obtain.

! Finding sub-optimal solutions

• Relaxing the objective function or

• Relaxing the constraints

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

4

Agenda

! To explore preference logic

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

5

Preference types

! Label preference, e.g. nite set and alternatives

! Object preferences, e.g. orange vs. apple

! Action-object preference, e.g. drinking tea or drinking coee

! Monadic preferences, e.g. good, bad

! and many other types: intrinsic, extrinsic, conditional

preferences etc.

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

6

Preference operators

! Preference operator:

e.g. A`B

• transitive, if A`B and B`C, then A`C

! Indierence: ~

e.g. A~B

• reexive, if A~B, then B~A

! At least as good as:

e.g. AB

• transitive, reexive

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

7

Basic preference operator

! At least as good as:

AB

! Preference:

A`B i AB and ¬(BA)

! Indierence: ~

A~B i AB and BA

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

8

Choice

! Choice is revealed preference (action).

! Choice function

Let ‘C’ be a choice function.

If ‘C’ is applied for set of alternatives ‘B’ then

for all BCA: C(B)CB,

if B≠Ø, then C(B)≠Ø

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

9

A

B

Choice properties (social)

! α – property (Cherno)

If BCA then B1C(A) CC(B)

Problem: C({A,B,C}) = {A}

C({A,B}) = {B}

B = Ø

! β – property

If BCA and X,Y÷C(B), then X÷C(A) i Y÷C(A)

Problem: One must be Australia champion to become world champion.

! ! - property (expansion)

C(A

1

)1…1C(A

n

) CC(A

1

¹…¹A

n

)

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

10

Choice properties (economic)

! Weak axiom of revealed preference (WARP)

If X,Y÷A and X÷C(A), then for all B,

if X÷B, and Y÷C(B), then X÷C(B)

Problem: oensive choices

! Strong axiom of revealed preference (SARP)

Recursive closure of WARP

In words: From a set of alternatives A

1

, if X is chosen while Y is available, and

if in some other sets alternatives A

2

, Y is chosen while Z is available, then there

can be no set of alternatives containing alternatives X and Z for which Z is

chosen but X is not.

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

11

Monadic predicates

! Good: better than its negation

A ` ¬A

! Bad: worse than its negation

¬A ` A

! Goodness

¬B. A ` B~¬B

! Badness

¬B. B~¬B ` A

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

12

Preference metrics

! Completeness (incompleteness)

! Transitivity

! Order

A

i

`X

k

`A

j

or A

j

`X

k

`A

i

holds for each pair of labels (A

i

, A

j

), i≠j

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

13

Constructing preferences from choice

ree dierent methods:

i. At least as good as

XY i for some B, X÷C(B) and Y÷B

X`Y i XY and ¬(YX)

X·Y i XY and YX

ii. At least as good as in a binary set

XY i X÷C({X,Y})

X`Y i XY and ¬(YX)

X·Y i XY and YX

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

14

Constructing preferences from choice

iii. Strictly preferred to

X`Y i for some B, X÷C(B) and Y÷[B\C(B)]

XY i ¬(X`Y)

X·Y i XY and YX

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

15

Learning preferences

! Let’s consider an agent is able to choose among worlds

! Let’s consider two propositions dene possible set of worlds:

p – e agent mostly visits Bondi beach.

q – e agent plays skate on the way.

Now, four possible set of worlds can be dened:

W

1

: p.q

W

2

: p.¬q

W

3

: ¬p.q

W

4

: ¬p. ¬q

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

16

Learning preferences

! Now, let’s consider, through interaction with many agents, we

found probability and desirability of the possible set of worlds

World Probability Desirability

W

1

: p.q 1/6 -2

W

2

: p.¬q 2/6 1

W

3

: ¬p.q 2/6 -1

W

4

: ¬p. ¬q 1/6 3

e value of a proposition can be evaluated as:

value = for all true occurrence/s of proposition, sum(probability × desirability)

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

17

Learning preferences

! value of p, #(p) =

! value of q, #(q) =

! Similarly, #(¬p) = , #(¬q) =

! Since #(p)>#(q) and #(¬q)>#(¬p), we conclude that pq.

e agent prefers going Bondi beach than playing skate.

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

18

1

6

×−2

#

$

%

&

'

(+

2

6

×1

#

$

%

&

'

( = 0

1

6

×−2

#

$

%

&

'

(+

2

6

×−1

#

$

%

&

'

( = −

4

6

1

6

5

6

Implementation

! Implementation of preferences has been taken as relaxation in

optimization procedure ( Jayaraman & Govindrajan & Mantha,

1998).

! It is achieved through constraint relaxation.

Let’s consider, we have a function ‘shortest-path’ dened as;

shortest-path(X, Y, C, P) ⟶ path(X, Y, C, P). – path P with distance C from

X to Y.

shortest-path(X,Y,C

1

,P

1

) shortest-path(X,Y,C

2

,P

2

) ⟵ C

1

< C

2

.

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

19

Challenges

! Expressivity and completeness

! Transitivity

! Dierent world problem, preference change, temporal preferences

! Belief

! Commitments

! Privacy

! Criticisms (“People do and should act as problem solvers, not maximizers, because

they have many dierent and incommensurable… goals to achieve” Steven G. Kranz)

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

20

ank you for your kind attention.

uestions and suggestions are welcome.

Preference Logic Pramod Parajuli, 2011

22

Bibliography

e primary source of the concepts presented here is the article ‘Preferences’ in

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/preferences/

Accessed on August 12, 2011.

Preference Logic Pramod Parajuli, 2011

23

Annex-1: constructing choice from preferences

ree cases:

i. e best choice connection

C

B

(B) = {X ÷ B | `Y ÷ B: (X`Y)}

ii. e non-dominance choice connection

C

L

(B) = {X ÷ B | `Y ÷ B: ¬(Y`X)}

iii. e optimization choice connection

When cyclic preferences exist, A`B`C`A, C

B

(A,B,C) = C

L

(A,B,C) = Ø

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

24

Annex-1: constructing choice from preferences

iii. e optimization choice connection continued…

Let S be the set of these sets. Now, B is in S i:

a) B ÷ r(A)

b) for all X,Y: if X÷A\B and Y÷B then ¬(X `Y)

c) for all F¹B there is a Y÷F such that for some X÷A\F: X`Y

Now, the choice function is dened as the union of S:

C

O

(A) = ¹ S

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

25

Annex-2: details of SARP

If

X

1

,X

2

, ..., X

n

÷A

1

,

X

2

, ..., X

n

÷A

2

, ...,

X

n-1

,X

n

÷A

n−1

,

X

n

÷A

n

, and

X

1

÷C(A

1

), X

2

÷C(A

2

), ..., X

n

÷C(A

n

),

then,

for all B with X

1

,X

2

,...,X

n

÷B, if X

i

÷C(B), i÷{1,...,n},

then X

1

,X

2

,...,X

i−1

÷C(B) (SARP)

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

26

Annex-3: questions raised at the end

Any formal model for desirability?

How would we capture desirability? ualitative desirability?

How preferences would t in automated planning? How would the cost model

developed?

Can preferences contribute to risk-modeling and mitigation?

How can the machine-learning methods be used for capturing preferences?

How preference-based model diers from Bayesian decision making theory?

Pramod Parajuli, 2011 Preference Logic

27

A Magic Lab presentation among my colleagues.

A Magic Lab presentation among my colleagues.

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd