基于信念与期望效用的道义逻辑

Aldo Iván Ramírez Abarca, J. Broersen
{"title":"基于信念与期望效用的道义逻辑","authors":"Aldo Iván Ramírez Abarca, J. Broersen","doi":"10.4204/EPTCS.335.27","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":118894,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Deontic Stit Logic Based on Beliefs and Expected Utility\",\"authors\":\"Aldo Iván Ramírez Abarca, J. Broersen\",\"doi\":\"10.4204/EPTCS.335.27\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":118894,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.335.27\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.335.27","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在人工智能伦理领域,使用逻辑语言形式化行为和义务是一个日益相关的话题。在道德情境中,有一个表达性的句法和语义框架来推理主体的决策,这就允许对行为的组成部分进行明确的表示,这些组成部分在对所述主体的结果进行指责(或赞扬)时是相关的。在这方面,行为的两个非常重要的组成部分是信念和基于信念的行动。在这项工作中,我们提出了一个矛盾性的逻辑,通过扩展与信仰的认识论道义sti理论。一方面,包含信念算子的公式的语义是基于概率测度的。另一方面,虚拟应该的语义依赖于最优性的概念,其潜在的选择规则是期望效用最大化。我们为结果逻辑引入了一个公理系统,并讨论了它的稳健性、完备性和可判定性结果。这些结果在旨在通过定理证明和模型检查来使用认识论、谬论和道义逻辑的证明系统来帮助测试人工智能的道德行为的研究中具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Deontic Stit Logic Based on Beliefs and Expected Utility
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Strengthening Consistency Results in Modal Logic A Logic-Based Analysis of Responsibility Epistemic Logics of Structured Intensional Groups Complete Conditional Type Structures (Extended Abstract) Selling Data to a Competitor
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1