This paper provides a logical analysis of conflicts between informational, motivational and deliberative attitudes such as beliefs, obligations, intentions, and desires. The contributions are twofold. First, conflict resolutions are classified based on agent types, and formalized in an extension of Reiter's normal default logic. Second, several desiderata for conflict resolutions are introduced, discussed and tested on the logic. The results suggest that Reiter's default logic is too strong, in the sense that a weaker notion of extension is needed to satisfy the desiderata.
Most juridical systems contain the principle that an act is only unlawful if the agent conducting the act has a 'guilty mind' ('mens rea'). Different law systems distinguish different modes of mens rea. For instance, American law distinguishes between 'knowingly' performing a criminal act, 'recklessness', 'strict liability', etc. This paper shows we can formalize several of these categories. The formalism used is a complete stit logic featuring operators for actions taking effect in next states, operators for S5-knowledge and operators for SDL-type obligation. The different modes of 'mens rea' correspond to the violation conditions of different types of obligation definable in the logic.
Abstract. This paper studies the logic of a dyadic modal operator for being obliged to meet a condition ρ before a condition δ becomes true. Starting from basic intuitions we arrive at a simple semantics for deadline obligations in terms of branching time models. We show that this notion of deadline obligation can be characterized in the branching time logic CTL. The defined operator obeys intuitive logic properties, like monotony w.r.t. ρ and anti-monotony w.r.t. δ, and avoids some counterintuitive properties like agglomeration w.r.t ρ and 'weak agglomeration' w.r.t. δ. However, obligations of this type are implied by the actual achievement of ρ before the deadline. We argue that this problem is caused by the fact that we model the obligation only from the point of view of its violation conditions. We show that the property might be eliminated by considering success conditions also.
In this paper we show how coalition logic can be reduced to the fusion of a normal modal STIT logic for agency and a standard normal temporal logic for discrete time, and how this multi-modal system can be suitably extended with an epistemic modality. Both systems are complete, and we provide a new axiomatization for the STIT-fragment. The epistemic extension enables us to express that agents see to something under uncertainty about the present state or uncertainty about which action is being taken. In accordance with established terminology in the planning community, we call this version of STIT the 'conformant STIT'. The conformant STIT enables us to express that agents are able to perform a uniform strategy. As a final word of recommendation for this paper we want to point out that its subject is at the junction of four academic fields, viz. modal logic, philosophy, game-theory and AI-planning.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.