Tableaux for Acceptance Logic

We continue the work initiated in [1,2,3], where the acceptance logic, a modal logic for modelling individual and collective acceptances was introduced. This logic is aimed at capturing the concept of acceptance qua member of an institution as the kind of attitude that agents are committed to when they are “functioning as members of an institution”. Acceptance logic can also be used to model judgement aggregation: it deals with how a collective acceptance of the members of an institution about a certain fact φ is created from the individual acceptances of the members of the institution. The contribution of this paper is to present a tableau method for the logic of acceptance. The method automatically decides whether a formula of the logic of acceptance is satisfiable thereby providing an automated reasoning procedure for judgement aggregation in the logic of acceptance.

[1]  Marc Pauly,et al.  Axiomatizing collective judgment sets in a minimal logical language , 2007, Synthese.

[2]  C. List,et al.  Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result , 2002, Economics and Philosophy.

[3]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  Practical Reasoning and Acceptance in a Context , 1992 .

[4]  Alvin I. Goldman,et al.  Group Knowledge Versus Group Rationality: Two Approaches to Social Epistemology , 2004, Episteme.

[5]  Luis Fariñas del Cerro,et al.  Modal Tableaux with Propagation Rules and Structural Rules , 1997, Fundam. Informaticae.

[6]  Guido Boella,et al.  Norm Negotiation in Multiagent Systems , 2007, Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst..

[7]  Emiliano Lorini,et al.  On the Dynamics of Institutional Agreements , 2008, KRAMAS.

[8]  Raimo Tuomela,et al.  Belief versus acceptance , 2000 .

[9]  Margaret Gilbert.  On Social Facts , 1989 .

[10]  Lawrence G. Sager,et al.  Unpacking the Court , 1986 .

[11]  Raimo Tuomela,et al.  The Philosophy of Social Practices: A Collective Acceptance View , 2002 .

[12]  Emiliano Lorini,et al.  A Logical Account of Institutions: From Acceptances to Norms via Legislators , 2008, KR.

[13]  P. Pettit.  Deliberative Democracy and the Discursive Dilemma , 2001 .

[14]  Robert Fleischer.  New Physics in B and K Decays , 2005 .

[15]  C. List.  Group Knowledge and Group Rationality: A Judgment Aggregation Perspective , 2005, Episteme.

[16]  M. Fitting.  Proof Methods for Modal and Intuitionistic Logics , 1983 .

[17]  M. Rehm,et al.  Proceedings of AAMAS , 2005 .

[18]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  A Guide to Completeness and Complexity for Modal Logics of Knowledge and Belief , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[19]  Emiliano Lorini,et al.  The Logic of Acceptance: Grounding Institutions on Agents' Attitudes , 2009, J. Log. Comput..

[20]  Christopher Hamilton,et al.  The nature of evil a reply to Garrard , 1999 .

[21]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Reasoning about judgment and preference aggregation , 2007, AAMAS '07.

[22]  Emiliano Lorini,et al.  What do we accept after an announcement , 2008 .

[23]  Rajeev Goré,et al.  Tableau Methods for Modal and Temporal Logics , 1999 .

[24]  Emiliano Lorini,et al.  Anchoring institutions in agents' attitudes: towards a logical framework for autonomous multi-agent systems , 2008, AAMAS.

[25]  T. Wilkerson.  An Essay on Belief and Acceptance , 1994 .

[26]  Marc Pauly,et al.  Logical Constraints on Judgement Aggregation , 2006, J. Philos. Log..

[27]  D. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of tableau methods , 1999 .