ModelAge Workshop on Formal Models of Agents

ModelAge 1997: Formal Models of Agents pp 216-239 | Cite as

The Role of Diagnosis and Decision Theory in Normative Reasoning

  • Leendert W. N. van der Torre
  • Pedro Ramos
  • José Luiz Fiadeiro
  • Yao-Hua Tan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1760)

Abstract

A theory of diagnosis and qualitative decision theory are able to formalize reasoning with norms. They are thus different from deontic logic, that formalizes reasoning about norms. In this paper, we compare two theories of diagnosis for normative systems: Ramos and Fiadeiro’s theory of diagnosis developed for organizational process design and Tan and Van der Torre’s theory of diagnosis extended with notions of qualitative decision theory. We observe several similarities.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AGM85]
    C.E. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, pages 510–530, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. [And58]
    A.R. Anderson. A reduction of deontic logic to alethic modal logic. Mind, 67:100–103, 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [Bea73]
    H. Beatty. On evaluating deontic logics. In Exact philosophy, pages 173–178. Reidel, 1973.Google Scholar
  4. [BLWW95]
    R.W.H. Bons, R.M. Lee, R.W. Wagenaar, and C.D. Wrigley. Modeling interorganizational trade procedures using documentary Petri nets. In Proceedings of the 27thHawaii International Conferenceon System Sciences (HICSS’95), Hawaii, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. [Bou94]
    C. Boutilier. Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’94), pages 75–86, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. [Cas81]
    H. Castañeda. The paradoxes of deontic logic: the simplest solution to all of them in one fell swoop. In New Studies in Deontic Logic. D. Reidel, 1981.Google Scholar
  7. [Che80]
    B.F. Chellas. Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. [CL92]
    K.-T. Chen and R.M. Lee. Schematic evaluation of internal accounting control systems. Technical Report Research Monograph RM-1992-08-01, Euridis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. [dKMR90]
    J. de Kleer, A.K. Mackwort, and R. Reiter. Characterizing diagnosis. In Proceedings AAAI’90, pages 324–330, Boston, MA, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [DP95]
    D. Dubois and H. Prade. Qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings IJCAI’95, pages 1924–1930. Morgan Kaufmann, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. [DW88]
    R Davis and H. Walter. Model based reasoning: troubleshouting. In Exploring Artificial Intelligence: Survey talks from the National Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pages 297–346, San Mateo, California, 1988. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  12. [Han71]
    B. Hansson. An analysis of some deontic logics. In Deontic Logic: Introductionary and Systematic Readings, pages 121–147. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 1971.Google Scholar
  13. [Hor93]
    J.F. Horty. Deontic logic as founded in nonmonotonic logic. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 9:69–91, 1993.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [Jen85]
    R.E. Jennings. Can there be a natural logic? Synthese, 65:257–274, 1985.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. [JS92]
    A.J.I. Jones and M. Sergot. Deontic logic in the representation of law: Towards a methodology. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1:45–64, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [KM92]
    H. Katsuno and A.O. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a belief base and revising it. In P. Gärdenfors, editor, Belief Revision, pages 183–203. Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. [Lan96]
    J. Lang. Conditional desires and utilities-an alternative approach to qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the ECAI’96, pages 318–322, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. [Rei87]
    R. Reiter. A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence, 32:57–95, 1987.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [RF96a]
    P. Ramos and J.L. Fiadeiro. A deontic logic for diagnosis of organisational process design. Technical report, Department of Informatics, Faculty of Sciences — University of Lisbon, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. [RF96b]
    P. Ramos and J.L. Fiadeiro. Diagnosis in organisational process design. Technical report, Department of Informatics, Faculty of Sciences — University of Lisbon, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. [Ros41]
    A. Ross. Imperatives and logic. Theoria, 7:53–71, 1941.Google Scholar
  22. [RTvdT96]
    J.-F. Raskin, Y.-H. Tan, and L.W.N. van der Torre. How to model normative behavior in Petri nets. In Proceedings of the Modelage’96, Sesimbra, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. [TH96]
    R. Thomason and R. Horty. Nondeterministic action and dominance: foundations for planning and qualitative decision. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK’96), pages 229–250. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar
  24. [Tho81]
    R. Thomason. Deontic logic as founded on tense logic. In R. Hilpinen, editor, New Studies in Deontic Logic, pages 165–176. D. Reidel, 1981.Google Scholar
  25. [TvdT94a]
    Y.-H. Tan and L.W.N. van der Torre. DIODE: Deontic logic based on diagnosis from first principles. In Proceedings of the Workshop ‘Artificial normative reasoning’ of the Eleventh European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’94), Amsterdam, 1994.Google Scholar
  26. [TvdT94b]
    Y.-H. Tan and L.W.N. van der Torre. Representing deontic reasoning in a diagnostic framework. In Proceedings of the Workshopon Legal Applications of Logic Programming of the Eleventh International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP’94), Genoa, Italy, 1994.Google Scholar
  27. [TvdT96]
    Y.-H. Tan and L.W.N. van der Torre. How to combine ordering and minimizing in a deontic logic based on preferences. InDeontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems. Proceedings of theΔeon’96.Workshopsin Computing, pages 216–232. Springer Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  28. [vdT94]
    L.W.N. van der Torre. Violated obligations in a defeasible deontic logic. In Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conferenceon Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’94), pages 371–375. JohnWiley & Sons, 1994.Google Scholar
  29. [vdTT95]
    L.W.N. van der Torre and Y.H. Tan. Cancelling and overshadowing: two types of defeasibility in defeasible deontic logic. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’95). Morgan Kaufman, 1995.Google Scholar
  30. [vdTT97a]
    L.W.N. van der Torre and Y.H. Tan. The many faces of defeasibility in defeasible deontic logic. In D. Nute, editor, Defeasible Deontic Logic. Kluwer, 1997. To appear.Google Scholar
  31. [vdTT97b]
    L.W.N. van der Torre and Y.H. Tan. Prohairetic deontic logic (PDL). In Proceedings of AAAI spring symposium on qualitative preferences in deliberation and practical reasoning, 1997. To appear.Google Scholar
  32. [vF73]
    B.C. van Fraassen. Values and the heart command. Journal of Philosophy, 70:5–19, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [vW71]
    G.H. von Wright. Deontic logic and the theory of conditions. In Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, pages 159–177. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1971.Google Scholar
  34. [vW81]
    G.H. von Wright. On the logic of norms and actions. In New Studies ofDeontic Logic. D.Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leendert W. N. van der Torre
    • 1
  • Pedro Ramos
    • 2
  • José Luiz Fiadeiro
    • 3
  • Yao-Hua Tan
    • 4
  1. 1.Max-Planck-Institute for Computer ScienceSaarbrückenGermany
  2. 2.Department of InformaticsISCTELisboa
  3. 3.Department of Informatics, Faculty of SciencesUniversity of LisbonLisboa
  4. 4.EURIDISErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations