Issues in Designing Logical Models for Norm Change

  • Jan Broersen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5368)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to raise awareness of some issues in designing (formal) models for norm change. I start by positioning this research in a broader context. Then I will briefly recall several concepts and problems from deontic logic, which is the field primarily concerned with notions like ‘norm’, ‘obligation’, ‘right’, etc. Then I proceed with what I regard the main contribution of the paper: the distinction of four categories of problems one faces when thinking about formal logical models for norm change.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ågotnes, T., Wooldridge, M., van der Hoek, W.: Normative system games. In: Huhns, M., Shehory, O. (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2007), May 2007, pp. 876–883. IFAMAAS (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functors 50, 510–530 (1985)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alchourrón, C.E.: A sketch of logic without truth. In: The 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 165–179. ACM Press, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. In: FOCS 1997: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1997), pp. 100–109. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aumann, R.J.: Agreeing to disagree. The Annals of Statistics 4(6), 1236–1239 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baltag, A., Moss, L.S.: Logics for epistemic programs. Synthese 139, 165–224 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bochman, A.: A logical theory of nonmonotonic inference and belief change. Springer, New York (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Fulfilling or violating norms in normative multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of IAT 2004, pp. 483–486. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Delta: The social delegation cycle. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS, vol. 3065. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N., Verhagen, H.: Introduction to normative multiagent systems. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory 12(2-3), 71–79 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Broersen, J., Mastop, R., Meyer, J.-J.C., Turrini, P.: A deontic logic for socially optimal norms. In: van der Meyden, R., van der Torre, L. (eds.) DEON 2008. LNCS, vol. 5076, pp. 218–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Broersen, J.M.: Strategic deontic temporal logic as a reduction to ATL, with an application to chisholm’s scenario. In: Goble, L., Meyer, J.-J.C. (eds.) DEON 2006. LNCS, vol. 4048, pp. 53–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Broersen, J.M., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Goal generation in the BOID architecture. Cognitive Science Quarterly Journal 2(3-4), 428–447 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Broersen, J.M., Dastani, M., van der Torre, L.: Beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires as components in an agent architecture. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 20(9), 893–920 (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Broersen, J.M., Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Meyer, J.-J.: Designing a deontic logic of deadlines. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS, vol. 3065, pp. 43–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Broersen, J.M., Herzig, A., Troquard, N.: Embedding Alternating-time Temporal Logic in strategic STIT logic of agency. Journal of Logic and Computation 16(5), 559–578 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Broersen, J.M., van der Torre, L.: Reasoning about norms, obligations, time and agents. In: Ghose, A., Governatori, G., Sadananda, R. (eds.) PRIMA 2007. LNCS, vol. 5044, pp. 171–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brown, M.A.: Normal bimodal logics of ability and action. Studia Logica 51(3/4), 519–532 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment 42(3), 213–261 (1990)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese Library, vol. 337. Springer, New York (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dunin-Keplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Collective intentions. Fundamenta Informaticae 51(3), 271–295 (2002)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Elgesem, D.: The modal logic of agency. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(2), 1–46 (1997)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Emerson, E.A.: Temporal and modal logic. In: van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science. Formal Models and Semantics, vol. B, ch. 14, pp. 996–1072 (1990)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Endriss, U.: The 1st international workshop on computational social choice. Knowledge Engineering Review 23(2), 213–215 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Belief revision and nonmonotonic logic: two sides of the same coin? In: van Eijck, J. (ed.) JELIA 1990. LNCS, vol. 478, pp. 52–54. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grossi, D., Meyer, J.-J.C., Dignum, F.: Classificatory Aspects of Counts-as: An Analysis in Modal Logic. J. Logic Computation 16(5), 613–643 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hansen, J., Pigozzi, G., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Ten philosophical problems in deontic logic. In: Normative Multi-agent Systems (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hansson, S.O.: A Textbook of Belief Dynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Horty, J.F.: Agency and Deontic Logic (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Horty, J.F.: Defaults with priorities. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36(4), 367–413 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jacquette, D.: Moral dilemmas, disjunctive obligations, and Kant’s principle that ‘ought’ implies ’can’. Synthese 88(1), 43–55 (2004)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jones, A., Sergot, M.: A formal characterization of institutionalized power. Journal of the IGPL 4(3), 429–445 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jones, A.J.I., Sergot, M.: On the characterization of law and computer systems: The normative sytems perspective. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Wieringa, R.J. (eds.) Normative System Specification. Deontic Logic in Computer Science, pp. 275–307. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1993)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jorgensen, J.: Imperatives and logic. Erkenntnis 7, 288–296Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kooi, B., Tamminga, A.: Moral conflicts between groups of agents. Journal of Philosophical Logic 37(1), 1–21 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liu, F.: Changing for the Better: Preference Dynamics and Agent Diversity. PhD thesis, ILLC Dissertation Series, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Makinson, D.: On a fundamental problem of deontic logic. In: McNamara, P., Prakken, H. (eds.) Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science, pp. 29–53. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Input-output logics. Journal of Philosphical Logic 29, 383–408 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Permission from an input-output perspective. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32, 391–416 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Meyer, J.-J.C.: A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29, 109–136 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Meyer, J.-J.C., van der Hoek, W., van Linder, B.: A logical approach to the dynamics of commitments (1999)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Minsky, N.H., Ungureanu, V.: Law-governed interaction: a coordination and control mechanism for heterogeneous distributed systems. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 9(3), 273–305 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Moses, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: Artificial social systems. Computers and AI 14, 533–562 (1995)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pauly, M.: A modal logic for coalitional power in games. Journal of Logic and Computation 12(1), 149–166 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pörn, I.: The logic of power. Basil-Blackwell, Malden (1970)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pratt, V.R.: Semantical considerations on Floyd-Hoare logic. In: Proceedings 17th IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 109–121 (1976)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Moses, Y., Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning about Knowledge (1995)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Formal models and decision procedures for multi-agent systems 8(3), 293–342 (1998)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Roorda, J.W., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.: Iterated belief change in multi-agent systems. Logic Journal of the IGPL 11(2), 223–246 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schild, K.: On the relationship between BDI-logics and standard logics of concurrency. Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems 3, 259–283 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Searle, J.: The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Thielscher, M.: The qualification problem: A solution to the problem of anomalous models. Artificial Intelligence 131(1-2), 1–37 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    van Benthem, J.: Exploring logical dynamics. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford (1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Epistemic Logic for AI and Computer Science (1995)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    van der Hoek, W., Roberts, M., Wooldridge, M.: Knowledge and social laws. In: AAMAS 2005: Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 674–681. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.: Public announcements and belief expansion. Advances in Modal Logic, vol. 5 (2005)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Veltman, F.: Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25, 221–261 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Witteveen, C., van der Hoek, W.: Recovery of (non)monotonic theories. Artif. Intell. 106(1), 139–159 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    von Wright, G.H.: Deontic logic. Mind 60, 1–15 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    von Wright, G.H.: Deontic logic - as I see it. In: McNamara, P., Prakken, H. (eds.) Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science, pp. 15–25. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Broersen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations