Deontic Logic Programs (Extended Abstract)

Expert Systems with Applications, 2009

The first source of motivation for our work is the modelling of multi-agent systems. In particular, we follow the approach of [1] that combines two perspectives: (a) a cognitive account of agents that specifies motivational attitudes, using the BDI architecture [2], and (b) modelling of agent societies by means of normative concepts .

Springer eBooks, 2018

A flexible infrastructure for the automation of deontic and normative reasoning is presented. Our motivation is the development, study and provision of legal and moral reasoning competencies in future intelligent machines. Since there is no consensus on the "best" deontic logic formalisms and since the answer may be application specific, a flexible infrastructure is proposed in which candidate logic formalisms can be varied, assessed and compared in experimental ethics application studies. Our work thus links the historically rich research areas of classical higher-order logic, deontic logics, normative reasoning and formal ethics.

Deontic logic enjoys increasing popularity. First and foremost, there are the biennial DEON conferences dedicated to deontic logic and related topics (since 1991). Moreover, Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems came into existence in 2013. The crucial importance of this publication for further rise of deontic logic is beyond question. But let us move three years forward. The 13 th DEON conference took place in Bayreuth (Germany) on July 18-21, 2016. The reviewed book contains the proceedings of this conference. Interestingly enough, the special focus was "Reasons, Argumentation and Justification". The clever choice of special focus has led to an interesting cooperation between argumentation theory and deontic logic. The conference had four keynote speakers, namely John Broome, Janice Dowell, Xavier Parent, and Gabriella Pigozzi.

Theory and Practice …, 2006

Defeasible reasoning is a simple but efficient approach to nonmonotonic reasoning that has recently attracted considerable interest and that has found various applications. Defeasible logic and its variants are an important family of defeasible reasoning methods. So far no relationship has been established between defeasible logic and mainstream nonmonotonic reasoning approaches.

2012

Defeasible Deontic Logic is a simple and computationally efficient approach for the representation of normative reasoning. Traditionally defeasible logics are defined proof theoretically based on the proof conditions for the logic. While several logic programming, operational and argumentation semantics have been provided for defeasible logics, possible world semantics for (modal) defeasible logics remained elusive. In this paper we address this issue.

arXiv (Cornell University), 2023

This paper examines how a notion of stable explanation developed elsewhere in Defeasible Logic can be expressed in the context of formal argumentation. With this done, we discuss the deontic meaning of this reconstruction and show how to build from argumentation neighborhood structures for deontic logic where this notion of explanation can be characterised. Some direct complexity results are offered.

European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2000

Defeasible reasoning is a direction in nonmonotonic rea- soning that is based on the use of rules that may be defeated by other rules. It is a simple, but often more efcient approach than other non- monotonic reasoning systems. This paper presents a family of defea- sible reasoning formalisms built around Nute's defeasible logic. We describe the motivations of these

1994

Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Applied computing - SAC '08, 2008

Defeasible logic is a simple and efficient rule-based nonmonotonic reasoning approach, that has been shown useful for various applications areas. Recently defeasible logic has been used in applications to the Semantic Web.

Deontic conflicts pose an important challenge to deontic logicians. The standard account —standard deontic logic, SDL— is not apt for addressing this challenge since it trivializes conflicts. Two main stratagems for gaining conflict-tolerance have been proposed: to weaken SDL in various ways, and to contextualize the reign of SDL to consistent subsets of the premise set. The latter began with the work of van Fraassen and has been further developed by Horty. In this paper we characterize this second ap- proach in general terms. We also study three basic ways to contextualize SDL and supplement each of these with a dynamic proof theory in the framework of adaptive logics.