A postulate-based analysis of comparative preference statements

There has been a growing interest in the study of preferences for their utility in solving problems related to decision making. Most of the preference representation languages developed in the literature are based on comparative preference statements since they offer a simple and intuitive way for expressing preferences. They can be further interpreted following different semantics, imparting a greater flexibility on how outcomes can be compared. So far the main objective has been to rank-order the set of outcomes given a set of comparative preference statements and one or several semantics. Tackling this problem from a different angle, we look into the behavioural aspects of the preference semantics and statements by attempting to formalise the intuition behind them using postulates studied in preference logics and non-monotonic reasoning. We select the postulates w.r.t. three criteria: coherence, syntax independence and inference. Thus, our analysis provides a means to determine those properties that are satisfied for a given preference semantics.