Skip to main content

A Temporal Logic of Normative Systems

  • Chapter
Towards Mathematical Philosophy

Part of the book series: Trends in Logic ((TREN,volume 28))

Abstract

We study Normative Temporal Logic (ntl), a formalism intended for reasoning about the temporal properties of normative systems. ntl is a generalisation of the well-known branching-time temporal logic ctl, in which the path quantifiers \({\mathsf{A}}\) (“on all paths…”) and \({\mathsf {E}}\) (“on some path…”) are replaced by the indexed deontic operators \({\mathsf{O}}_{\eta}\) (“it is obligatory in the context of the normative system η that …”) and \({\mathsf{P}}_{\eta}\) (“it is permissible in the context of the normative system η that…”). After introducing the logic, we give a sound and complete axiomatisation. We then present a symbolic representation language for normative systems, and we identify four different model checking problems, corresponding to whether or not a model is represented symbolically or explicitly, and whether or not we are given a concrete interpretation for the normative systems named in formulae to be model checked. We show that the complexity of model checking varies from p-complete in the simplest case (explicit state model checking where we are given a specific interpretation for all normative systems in the formula) up to exptime-hard in the worst case (symbolic model checking, no interpretation given). We present examples to illustrate the use of ntl, and conclude with discussions of related work (in particular, the relationship of ntl to other deontic logics), and some issues for future work.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alur, R., Henzinger, T., Computer-aided verification, 1999. Manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., ‘Reactive modules’, Formal Methods in System Design, 15(11): 7–48, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O., ‘Alternating-time temporal logic’, Journal of the ACM, 49(5): 672–713, 2002.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Mang, F.Y.C., Qadeer, S., Rajamani, S.K., Taşiran, S., ‘Mocha: Modularity in model checking’, in CAV 1998: Tenth International Conference on Computer-aided Verification, LNCS, vol. 1427, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1998, pp. 521–525.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Attie, Paul C., Allen Emerson, E., ‘Synthesis of concurrent systems with many similar processes’, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 20(1): 51–115, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Broersen, J., ‘Strategic deontic temporal logic as a reduction to ATL, with an application to Chisholm’s scenario’, in Proceedings Eighth International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON’06), LNAI, vol. 4048, Springer, Berlin, 2006, pp. 53–68.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Broersen, J., Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Meyer, J.-J. Ch., ‘Designing a deontic logic of deadlines’, in Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.), Proceedings Seventh International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON’04), LNAI, vol. 3065, Springer, Berlin, 2004, pp. 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brunel, J., Combining temporal and deontic logics. with an application to computer security, Ph.D. thesis, IRIT, Toulouse, France, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Carmo, Jose, Jones, Andrew J.I., ‘Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties’, in Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edition, vol. 8, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2002, pp. 265–343.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cheng, A., ‘Complexity results for model checking’, Tech. Rep. RS-95-18, BRICS, Department of Computer Science, University of Aarhus, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A., Model Checking, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dignum, F., ‘Autonomous agents with norms’, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7: 69–79, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dignum, F., Broersen, J., Dignum, V., Meyer, J.-J. Ch., ‘Meeting the deadline: Whey, when and how’, in Hinchey, M.G., Rash, J.L., Truszkowski, W.F., Rouff C.A. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Agent-Based Systems, LNAI, vol. 3228, Springer, Berlin, 2004, pp. 30–40.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Emerson, E.A., ‘Temporal and modal logic’, in van Leeuwen J. (ed.), Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science Volume B: Formal Models and Semantics, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1990, pp. 996–1072.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Francez, N., Fairness, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1986.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J., Dynamic Logic, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. van der Hoek, W., Lomuscio, A., Wooldridge, M., ‘On the complexity of practical ATL model checking’, in Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2006), Hakodate, Japan, 2005, pp. 201–208.

    Google Scholar 

  18. van der Hoek, W., Roberts, M., Wooldridge, M., ‘Social laws in alternating time: Effectiveness, feasibility, and synthesis’, Synthese, 156(1): 1–19, 2007.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Lomuscio, A., Sergot, M., ‘Deontic interpreted systems’, Studia Logica, 75(1): 63–92, 2003.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Moses, Y., Tennenholtz, M., ‘Artificial social systems’, Computers and AI, 14(6): 533–562, 1995.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Prakken, H., Sergot, M., ‘Contrary-to-duty obligations’, Studia Logica 57(1): 91–115, 1996.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Schnoebelen, P., ‘The complexity of temporal logic model checking’, in Balbiani, P., Suzuki, N.-Y., Wolter, F., Zakharyascev, M. (eds.), Advances in Modal Logic, vol. 4, King’s College Publications, London, 2003, pp. 393–436.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sergot, M., ‘Modelling unreliable and untrustworthy agent behaviour’, in Dunin-Keplicz, B., Jankowski, A., Skowron, A., Szczuka, M. (eds.), Monitoring, Security, and Rescue Techniques in Multiagent Systems, Advances in Soft Computing, Springer, Berlin, 2005, pp. 161–178.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Sergot, M., Craven, R., ‘The deontic component of action language nC+’, in Goble, L., Meyer, J.-J. Ch. (eds.), Deontic Logic and Artificial Systems, Proc. 8th International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, LNAI, 4048, Springer, Berlin, 2006, pp. 222–237.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Shoham, Y., Tennenholtz, M., ‘Emergent conventions in multi-agent systems’, in Rich, C., Swartout, W., Nebel, B. (eds.), Proceedings of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR&R-92), 1992, pp. 225–231.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Shoham, Y., Tennenholtz, M., ‘On the synthesis of useful social laws for artificial agent societies’, in Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-92), San Diego, CA, 1992, pp. 276–281.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shoham, Y., Tennenholtz, M., ‘On social laws for artificial agent societies: Off-line design’, in Agre, P.E., Rosenschein, S.J. (eds.), Computational Theories of Interaction and Agency, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996, pp. 597–618.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Shoham, Y., Tennenholtz, M., ‘On the emergence of social conventions: Modelling, analysis, and simulations’, Artificial Intelligence, 94(1–2): 139–166, 1997.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Stockmeyer, L.J., Chandra, A.K., ‘Provably difficult combinatorial games’, SIAM Journal of Computing, 8(2): 151–174, 1979.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Wieringa, R.J., Meyer, J.-J.Ch., ‘Deontic logic in computer science’, in Meyer, J.-J.Ch., Wieringa, R.J. (eds.), Deontic Logic in Computer Science—Normative System Specification, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1993, pp. 17–40.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wooldridge, M., van der Hoek, W., ‘On obligations and normative ability: Towards a logical analysis of the social contract’, Journal of Applied Logic, 4(3–4): 396–420, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Ågotnes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ågotnes, T., van der Hoek, W., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C., Wooldridge, M. (2009). A Temporal Logic of Normative Systems. In: Makinson, D., Malinowski, J., Wansing, H. (eds) Towards Mathematical Philosophy. Trends in Logic, vol 28. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9084-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics