Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userIs Free Choice Permission Admissible in Classical Deontic Logic?
111
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Guido Governatori
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In this paper, we explore how, and if, free choice permission (FCP) can be accepted when we consider deontic conflicts between certain types of permissions and obligations. As is well known, FCP can license, under some minimal conditions, the derivation of an indefinite number of permissions. We discuss this and other drawbacks and present six Hilbert-style classical deontic systems admitting a guarded version of FCP. The systems that we present are not too weak from the inferential viewpoint, as far as permission is concerned, and do not commit to weakening any specific logic for obligations.
rate research
Read More
We consider the pressing question of how to model, verify, and ensure that autonomous systems meet certain textit{obligations} (like the obligation to respect traffic laws), and refrain from impermissible behavior (like recklessly changing lanes). Temporal logics are heavily used in autonomous system design; however, as we illustrate here, temporal (alethic) logics alone are inappropriate for reasoning about obligations of autonomous systems. This paper proposes the use of Dominance Act Utilitarianism (DAU), a deontic logic of agency, to encode and reason about obligations of autonomous systems. We use DAU to analyze Intels Responsibility-Sensitive Safety (RSS) proposal as a real-world case study. We demonstrate that DAU can express well-posed RSS rules, formally derive undesirable consequences of these rules, illustrate how DAU could help design systems that have specific obligations, and how to model-check DAU obligations.
We develop local reasoning techniques for message passing concurrent programs based on ideas from separation logics and resource usage analysis. We extend processes with permission- resources and define a reduction semantics for this extended language. This provides a foundation for interpreting separation formulas for message-passing concurrency. We also define a sound proof system permitting us to infer satisfaction compositionally using local, separation-based reasoning.
This paper presents a program logic for reasoning about multithreaded Java-like programs with dynamic thread creation, thread joining and reentrant object monitors. The logic is based on concurrent separation logic. It is the first detailed adaptation of concurrent separation logic to a multithreaded Java-like language. The program logic associates a unique static access permission with each heap location, ensuring exclusive write accesses and ruling out data races. Concurrent reads are supported through fractional permissions. Permissions can be transferred between threads upon thread starting, thread joining, initial monitor entrancies and final monitor exits. In order to distinguish between initial monitor entrancies and monitor reentrancies, auxiliary variables keep track of multisets of currently held monitors. Data abstraction and behavioral subtyping are facilitated through abstract predicates, which are also used to represent monitor invariants, preconditions for thread starting and postconditions for thread joining. Value-parametrized types allow to conveniently capture common strong global invariants, like static object ownership relations. The program logic is presented for a model language with Java-like classes and interfaces, the soundness of the program logic is proven, and a number of illustrative examples are presented.
The formalization of action and obligation using logic languages is a topic of increasing relevance in the field of ethics for AI. Having an expressive syntactic and semantic framework to reason about agents decisions in moral situations allows for unequivocal representations of components of behavior that are relevant when assigning blame (or praise) of outcomes to said agents. Two very important components of behavior in this respect are belief and belief-based action. In this work we present a logic of doxastic oughts by extending epistemic deontic stit theory with beliefs. On one hand, the semantics for formulas involving belief operators is based on probability measures. On the other, the semantics for doxastic oughts relies on a notion of optimality, and the underlying choice rule is maximization of expected utility. We introduce an axiom system for the resulting logic, and we address its soundness, completeness, and decidability results. These results are significant in the line of research that intends to use proof systems of epistemic, doxastic, and deontic logics to help in the testing of ethical behavior of AI through theorem-proving and model-checking.
Action logic is the algebraic logic (inequational theory) of residuated Kleene lattices. This logic involves Kleene star, axiomatized by an induction scheme. For a stronger system which uses an $omega$-rule instead (infinitary action logic) Buszkowski and Palka (2007) have proved $Pi_1^0$-completeness (thus, undecidability). Decidability of action logic itself was an open question, raised by D. Kozen in 1994. In this article, we show that it is undecidable, more precisely, $Sigma_1^0$-complete. We also prove the same complexity results for all recursively enumerable logics between action logic and infinitary action logic; for fragments of those only one of the two lattice (additive) connectives; for action logic extended with the law of distributivity.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
