Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adaptive Logic Characterizations of Input/Output Logic

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We translate unconstrained and constrained input/output logics as introduced by Makinson and van der Torre to modal logics, using adaptive logics for the constrained case. The resulting reformulation has some additional benefits. First, we obtain a proof-theoretic (dynamic) characterization of input/output logics. Second, we demonstrate that our framework naturally gives rise to useful variants and allows to express important notions that go beyond the expressive means of input/output logics, such as violations and sanctions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amgoud, L., and H. Prade, Towards a logic of argumentation, in E. Hüllermeier, S. Link, T. Fober, and B. Seeger (eds.), Scalable Uncertainty Management, vol. 7520 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, 2012, pp. 558–565.

  2. Apothéloz D., Brandt P.-Y., Quiroz G.: The function of negation in argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics 19(1), 23–38 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Batens, D., A survey of inconsistency-adaptive logics, in D. Batens, G. Priest, and J.-P. van Bendegem (eds.), Frontiers of Paraconsistent Logic, Research Studies Press, Kings College Publication, Baldock, 2000, pp. 49–73.

  4. Batens, D., The need for adaptive logics in epistemology, in Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science, Springer, Berlin, 2004, pp. 459–485.

  5. Batens D.: A procedural criterion for final derivability in inconsistency-adaptive logics. Journal of Applied Logic 3, 221–250 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Batens D.: A universal logic approach to adaptive logics. Logica Universalis 1, 221–242 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Batens, D., Towards a dialogic interpretation of dynamic proofs, in C. Dégremont, L. Keiff, and H. Rückert (eds.), Dialogues, Logics and Other Strange Things. Essays in Honour of Shahid Rahman, College Publications, London, 2009, pp. 27–51

  8. Batens D., Provijn D.: the search paths in the proofs. A study in proof heuristics. Logique et Analyse 173-175, 113–134 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Beirlaen M., Straßer C.: Two adaptive logics of norm-propositions. Journal of Applied Logic 11(2), 147–168 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Beirlaen M., Straßer C.: Nonmonotonic reasoning with normative conflicts in multi-agent deontic logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 24(6), 1179–1207 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Beirlaen M., Straßer C., Meheus J.: An inconsistency-adaptive deontic logic for normative conflicts. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42(2), 285–315 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bochman A.: Explanatory Nonmonotonic Reasoning. OECD Publishing, Paris (2005)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Boella G., van der Torre L.: Institutions with a hierarchy of authorities in distributed dynamic environments. Artifical Intelligence and Law 16, 53–71 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Boutilier C.: Conditional logics of normality: a modal approach. Artificial Intelligence 68(1), 87–154 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brewka, G., Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning, in Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’89), 1989, pp. 1043–1048.

  16. Crocco, G., and P. Lamarre, On the connection between non-monotonic inference systems and conditional logics, in B. Nebel and E. Sandewall (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 1992, pp. 565–571.

  17. Gabbay, D., Conditional implications and non-monotonic consequence, in G. Crocco, L. Farinhas del Cerro and A. Herzig (eds.), Conditionals: From Philosophy to Computer Science, vol. 5 of Studies in Logic and Computation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995, pp. 337–359.

  18. Goble L.: Deontic logic (adapted) for normative conflicts. Logic Journal of IGPL 22(2), 206–235 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gonçalves, R., and J. J. Alferes, An embedding of input-output logic in deontic logic programs, in T. Ågotnes, J. Broersen, and D. Elgesem (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, vol. 7393 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, Berlin, 2012, pp. 61–75.

  20. Hansen, J., G. Pigozzi, and L. van der Torre, Ten philosophical problems in deontic logic, in G. Boella, L. van der Torre, and H. Verhagen (eds.), Normative Multi-agent Systems, No. 07122 in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2007, Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany.

  21. Horty J. F.: Moral dilemmas and nonmonotonic logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 23(1), 35–65 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Horty J. F.: Skepticism and floating conclusions. Artificial Intelligence 135, 55–72 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Horty J. F.: Reasons as Defaults. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Kraus S., Lehmann D. J., Magidor M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence 44, 167–207 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lehmann D.J., Magidor M.: What does a conditional knowledge base entail?. Artificial Intelligence 55(1), 1–60 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lin, F., and Y. Shoham, Epistemic Semantics for Fixed-Points Non-monotonic Logics, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Pacific Grove, CA, 1990.

  27. Lindström, S., A semantic approach to nonmonotonic reasoning: inference operations and choice, Uppsala Prints and Reprints in Philosophy 10, 1994.

  28. Makinson D., Schlechta K.: Floating conclusions and zombie paths: two deep difficulties in the “directly skeptical” approach to defeasible inheritance nets. Artificial Intelligence 48, 199–209 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Makinson D., van der Torre L.: Input/output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29, 383–408 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Makinson D., van der Torre L.: Constraints for input/output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30, 155–185 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Makinson D., van der Torre L.: Permission from an input/output perspective. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32(4), 391–416 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Makinson, D., and L. van der Torre, What is input/output logic? input/output logic, constraints, permissions, in G. Boella, L. van der Torre, and H. Verhagen (eds.), Normative Multi-agent Systems, No. 07122 in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Dagstuhl, Germany, Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, 2007.

  33. Meheus, J., M. Beirlaen, and F. Van De Putte, Avoiding deontic explosion by contextually restricting aggregation, in G. Governatori and G. Sartor (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, vol. 6181 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, 2010, pp. 148–165.

  34. Meheus, J., C. Straßer, and P. Verdée, Which style of reasoning to choose in the face of conflicting information? Journal of Logic and Computation, 2013. doi:10.1093/logcom/ext030.

  35. Parent, X., and L. Van Der Torre, Aggregative deontic detachment for normative reasoning, Short paper, to appear in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 2014.

  36. Parent, X., and L. Van Der Torre, Sing and dance!, in F. Cariani, D. Grossi, J. Meheus and X. Parent (eds.), Deontic Logic and Normative Systems. Springer, Berlin, 2014, pp. 149–165.

  37. Pollock, J., Defeasible reasoning, in J. E. Adler and L. J. Rips (eds.), Reasoning. Studies of Human Inference and Its Foundations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, pp. 451–470.

  38. Prakken, H., Intuitions and the modelling of defeasible reasoning: some case studies, in S. Benferhat and E. Giunchiglia (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, 2002, pp. 91–102.

  39. Reiter R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rescher N., Manor R.: On inference from inconsistent premises. Theory and Decision 1, 179–217 (1970)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Stolpe, A., Normative consequence: the problem of keeping it whilst giving it up, in R. van der Meyden and L. van der Torre (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, vol. 5076 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, 2008, pp. 174–188.

  42. Stolpe, A., Norms and Norm-System Dynamics, PhD Thesis, Department of Philosophy, University of Bergen, Norway, 2008.

  43. Stolpe A.: A theory of permission based on the notion of derogation. Journal of Applied Logic 8(1), 97–113 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Straßer C.: A deontic logic framework allowing for factual detachment. Journal of Applied Logic 9(1), 61–80 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Straßer C.: Adaptive Logic and Defeasible Reasoning. Applications in Argumentation, Normative Reasoning and Default Reasoning. Springer, Berlin (2014)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Straßer C., Beirlaen M., Meheus J.: Tolerating deontic conflicts by adaptively restricting inheritance. Logique & Analyse 219, 477–506 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Straßer, C., and F. Van De Putte, Proof theories for superpositions of adaptive logics, Logique et Analyse 25(230), 2015

  48. Van De Putte F.: Hierarchic adaptive logics. Logic Journal of the IGPL 20, 45–72 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Van De Putte F., Straßer C.: Extending the standard format of adaptive logics to the prioritized case. Logique et Analyse 55(220), 601–641 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Van De Putte F., Straßer C.: A logic for prioritized normative reasoning. Journal of Logic and Computation 23(3), 563–583 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Van De Putte F., Verdée P.: The dynamics of relevance: Adaptive belief revision. Synthese 187(1), 1–42 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Van Der Torre, L., and Y.-H. Tan, Cancelling and overshadowing: two types of defeasibility in defeasible deontic logic, in Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’95), 1995, pp. 1525–1532.

  53. Van Fraassen B.C.: Values and the heart’s command. Journal of Philosophy 70, 5–19 (1973)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Christian Straßer, Mathieu Beirlaen & Frederik Van De Putte

  2. Institute for Philosophy II, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

    Christian Straßer, Mathieu Beirlaen & Frederik Van De Putte

  3. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, Mexico

    Mathieu Beirlaen

Authors
  1. Christian Straßer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mathieu Beirlaen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frederik Van De Putte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Straßer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Straßer, C., Beirlaen, M. & Van De Putte, F. Adaptive Logic Characterizations of Input/Output Logic. Stud Logica 104, 869–916 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-016-9656-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-016-9656-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation