Sequence Semantics for Modelling Reason-based Preferences

• Autorzy: Calardo E. , Governatori G. , Rotolo A.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.3233/FI-2018-1647

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

We study how the non-classical n-ary operator ⊗, originally intended to capture the concept of reparative obligation, can be used in the context of social choice theory to model preferences. A novel possible-world model-theoretic semantics, called sequence semantics, was proposed for the operator. In this paper, we propose a sound and complete axiomatisation of a minimal modal logic for the operator, and we extend it with axioms suitable to model social choice consistency principles such as extension consistency and contraction consistency. We provide completeness results for such extensions.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

sequence semantics; preferences; modal logic; non normal modal logics; neighbourhood semantics; social choice theory; choice consistency

• Wydawca: IOS Press
• Czasopismo: Fundamenta Informaticae
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: Vol. 158, nr 1/3
• Strony: 217--238
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 22 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Calardo E.

• CIRSFID, University of Bologna, Via Galliera 3, 40122 Bologna, Italy

autor

Governatori G.

• Data61, CSIRO, 41 Boggo Road, Dutton Park, Queensland, 4109, Australia

autor

Rotolo A.

• CIRSFID, University of Bologna, Via Galliera 3, 40122 Bologna, Italy

Bibliografia

• [1] Gaertner W. A Primer in Social Choice Theory: Revised Edition. Oxford University Press, 2009.
• [2] Brandt F, Conitzer V, Endriss U. Computational Social Choice. In: Multiagent Systems. MIT Press, 2012.
• [3] Boutilier C, Brafman RI, Domshlak C, Hoos HH, Poole D. CP-nets: A Tool for Representing and Reasoning with Conditional Ceteris Paribus Preference Statements. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2004;21:135-191. doi:10.1613/jair.1234.
• [4] Coste-Marquis S, Lang J, Liberatore P, Marquis P. Expressive Power and Succinctness of Propositional Languages for Preference Representation. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference (KR 2004). 2004 pp. 203-212. URL http://www.aaai.org/Library/KR/2004/kr04-023.php.
• [5] Lang J. Logical Preference Representation and Combinatorial Vote. Annals of Mathematics in Artificial Intelligence, 2004;42(1-3):37-71. doi:10.1023/B:AMAI.0000034522.25580.09.
• [6] Jiang G, Zhang D, Perrussel L, Zhang H. A Logic for Collective Choice. In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2015). 2015 pp. 979-987. URL http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2773277.
• [7] Osherson D, Weinstein S. Preference based on reasons. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 2012;5:122-147. doi:10.1017/S1755020311000244.
• [8] Brewka G, Benferhat S, Le Berre D. Qualitative choice logic. Artificial Intelligence, 2004. 157(1-2):203-237. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2004.04.006.
• [9] Governatori G, Rotolo A. Logic of Violations: A Gentzen System for Reasoning with Contrary-To-Duty Obligations. Australasian Journal of Logic, 2006;4:193-215.
• [10] Hansson B. An Analysis of Some Deontic Logics. Nous, 1969;(3):373-398.
• [11] Hansen J. Conflicting imperatives and dyadic deontic logic. Journal of Applied Logic, 2005;3(3-4):484-511. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jal.2005.04.005.
• [12] van Benthem J, Grossi D, Liu F. Priority Structures in Deontic Logic. Theoria, 2014;80(2):116-152. doi:10.1111/theo.12028.
• [13] Calardo E, Governatori G, Rotolo A. A Preference-Based Semantics for CTD Reasoning. In: Deontic Logic and Normative Systems - 12th International Conference (DEON 2014). 2014 pp. 49-64. ISBN-978-3-319-08615-6.
• [14] Governatori G, Olivieri F, Calardo E, Rotolo A. A Sequence Semantics for Norms and Obligations. In: Deontic Logic and Normative Systems - 13th International Conference (DEON 2016). College Publications, 2016 pp. 93-108.
• [15] Chellas BF. Modal Logic, An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, 1980.
• [16] Governatori G. Thou Shalt is not You Will. In: Atkinson K (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, New York, 2015 pp. 63-68. doi:10.1145/2746090.2746105.
• [17] Sen A. Social Choice Theory: A Re-examination. Econometrica, 1977;45(1):53-89. URL http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ecm:emetrp:v:45:y:1977:i:1:p:53-89.
• [18] Prakken H, Sergot MJ. Contrary-to-Duty Obligations. Studia Logica, 1996;57(1):91-115. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00370671.
• [19] van der Torre L. Reasoning about obligations: defeasibility in preference-based deontic logic. PhD thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 1997.
• [20] Governatori G, Olivieri F, Rotolo A, Scannapieco S. Computing Strong and Weak Permissions in Defeasible Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2013;42(6):799-829. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-013-9295-1.
• [21] Governatori G, Olivieri F, Scannapieco S, Rotolo A, Cristani M. The Rational behind the Concept of Goal. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 2016;16:296-324. doi:10.1017/S1471068416000053.
• [22] Calardo E, Governatori G, Rotolo A. Semantics for Modelling Reason-based Preferences. In: Chen Q, Torroni P, Villata S (eds.), Proceedings PRIMA 2015, volume 9387 of LNCS. Springer, 2015 pp. 101-117. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25524-87.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2018).