Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnosis and decision making in normative reasoning

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Diagnosis theory reasons about incomplete knowledge and only considers the past. It distinguishes between violations and non-violations. Qualitative decision theory reasons about decision variables and considers the future. It distinguishes between fulfilled goals and unfulfilled goals. In this paper we formalize normative diagnoses and decisions in the special purpose formalism DIO(DE)2 as well as in extensions of the preference-based deontic logic PDL. The DIagnostic and DEcision-theoretic framework for DEontic reasoning DIO(DE)2 formalizes reasoning about violations and fulfillments, and is used to characterize the distinction between normative diagnosis theory and (qualitative) decision theory. The extension of the preference-based deontic logic PDL shows how normative diagnostic and decision-theoretic reasoning — i.e. reasoning about violations and fulfillments — can be formalized as an extension of deontic reasoning.

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

  • Anderson, A. 1958. A reduction of deontic logic to alethic modal logic. Mind 67, 100-103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. 1994. Deontic logic: Who needs it? In Proceedings of the Workshop ‘Artificial Normative Reasoning’ of the Eleventh European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'94), pp. 69-78.

  • Boutilier, C. 1994. Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'94), San Francisco, (CA): Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 75-86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, T. & Wellman, M. 1991. Planning and Control, San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J. & Wellman, M. 1991. Preferential semantics for goals. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-91), pp. 698-703.

  • Doyle, J. 1980. A model for deliberation, action and introspection. Technical Report AI-TR-581, MIT AI Laboratory.

  • Forrester, J. 1984. Gentle murder, or the adverbial samaritan. Journal of Philosophy 81, 193-197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. 1995. The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice, Kluwer.

  • Hage, J. 1996. A theory of legal reasoning, and a logic to match, Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 199-273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, B. 1971. An analysis of some deontic logics. In Hilpinen, R. (ed.), Deontic Logic: Introductionary and Systematic Readings. D. Reidel Publishing Company: Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 121-147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. & Sergot, M. 1992. Deontic logic in the representation of law: Towards a methodology. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 45-64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. & Sergot, M. 1993. On the characterisation of law and computer systems: The normative systems perspective. In Meyer, J. & Wieringa, R. (eds.), Deontic Logic in Computer Science, John Wiley and Sons.

  • Lang, J. 1996. Conditional desires and utilities — An alternative approach to qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'96), pp. 318-322.

  • McCarty, L. 1994. Modalities over actions: 1. Model theory. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'94), San Francisco (CA): Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 437-448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. 1993. From conditional oughts to qualitative decision theory. In Heckerman, D. & Mamdani, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-93) San Mateo (CA): Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 12-20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. & Sartor, G. 1996. A system for defeasible argumentation, with defeasible priorities. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 331-368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramos, P. & Fiadeiro, J. 1996. Diagnosis in organisational process design. Technical report, Department of Informatics, Faculty of Sciences, University of Lisbon.

  • Ramos, P. & Fiadeiro, J. 1998. A deontic logic for diagnosis of organisational process design. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (Δeon-98), To appear.

  • Reiter, R. 1987. A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence 32, 57-95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T. 1994. Legal Expert Systems: Discussion of Theoretical Assumptions. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Utrecht.

  • Tan, Y.-H. & van der Torre, L. 1994a. Diode: deontic logic based on diagnosis from first principles. In Proceedings of the Workshop ‘Artificial Normative Reasoning’ of the Eleventh European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'94), pp. 21-39.

  • Tan, Y.-H. & van der Torre, L. 1994b. Multi preference semantics for a defeasible deontic logic. In Legal Knowledge-Based Systems. The Relation with Legal Theory. Proceedings of the JURIX'94, pp. 115-126. Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, Y.-H. & van der Torre, L. 1994c. Representing deontic reasoning in a diagnostic framework. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Legal Applications of Logic Programming of the Eleventh International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'94), pp. 138-150.

  • Tan, Y.-H. & van der Torre, L. 1996. How to combine ordering and minimizing in a deontic logic based on preferences. In Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems. Proceedings of the Δeon'96. Workshops in Computing, Springer Verlag, pp. 216-232.

  • Thomason, R. & Horty, R. 1996. Nondeterministic action and dominance: Foundations for planning and qualitative decision. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK'96), Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 229-250.

  • van der Torre, L. & Tan, Y.-H. 1997a. Distinguishing different roles in normative reasoning. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL'97), ACM Press, pp. 225-232.

  • van der Torre, L. & Tan, Y.-H. 1998. Prohairetic Deontic Logic (PDL). In Logics in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 1489, pp. 77-91, Springer.

  • van der Torre, L., Ramos, P., Fiadeiro, J.-L., & Tan, Y. 1997. The role of diagnosis and decision theory in normative reasoning. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Formal Models of Agents (Modelage'97).

  • von Wright, G. 1983. Practical Reason. Blackwell: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Computer Science, Im Stadtwald, D-66123, Saarbrücken

    Leendert W. N. Van Der Torre

  2. EURIDIS, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam

    Yao-Hua Tan

Authors
  1. Leendert W. N. Van Der Torre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yao-Hua Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Der Torre, L.W.N., Tan, YH. Diagnosis and decision making in normative reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7, 51–67 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008359312576

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008359312576

Keywords

Search

Navigation