Formal Analysis of Agentive Permissions in Multiagent Systems

Основные понятия

This paper proposes four forms of agentive permissions in multiagent settings: strong permission to admit, strong permission to ensure, weak permission to admit, and weak permission to ensure. It provides a formal semantics, analyzes the complexity of model checking, and presents a sound and complete logical system capturing the interplay between these modalities.

Аннотация

The paper introduces four forms of agentive permissions in multiagent settings:

Strong permission to admit (SA): Any action of an agent that admits of a certain outcome is permitted.
Strong permission to ensure (SE): Any action of an agent that ensures a certain outcome is permitted.
Weak permission to admit (WA): There exists a permitted action of an agent that admits of a certain outcome.
Weak permission to ensure (WE): There exists a permitted action of an agent that ensures a certain outcome.

The paper provides a formal semantics for these modalities in multiagent transition systems. It analyzes the time complexity of the model checking problem, showing it is polynomial in the size of the input. The paper also proves that these four modalities are semantically undefinable through each other, in contrast to the fact that "ensuring" and "admitting" are dual notions when separated from permissions.
Finally, the paper presents a sound and complete logical system for reasoning about these four forms of agentive permissions. The axioms and inference rules capture the interplay between the modalities and offer an efficient way for permission reasoning in multiagent settings.

Статистика

None.

Цитаты

None.

Ключевые выводы из

Agentive Permissions in Multiagent Systems

by Qi Shi в arxiv.org 04-29-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.17053.pdf

Дополнительные вопросы

How can the proposed framework be extended to handle multi-step deontic constraints, where the permitted actions at one step depend on the actions taken in previous steps

To extend the proposed framework to handle multi-step deontic constraints, where permitted actions at one step depend on previous actions, we need to introduce a temporal element into the transition system. This temporal aspect would involve tracking the sequence of actions taken by agents over time and how these actions influence the permissions at each step.
One approach could be to introduce a temporal component to the transition system, where each state represents a snapshot of the system at a specific time point. The deontic constraints would then evolve over time based on the actions taken by agents in previous steps. This would require an extension of the mechanism in the transition system to incorporate temporal dependencies and track the evolution of permissions over time.
Additionally, the modalities in the logical system would need to be adapted to account for the temporal aspect. For instance, the modalities for ensuring and admitting permissions would need to consider the temporal sequence of actions and their effects on the overall outcome. This extension would allow the framework to handle complex multi-step deontic constraints and capture the dynamic nature of permissions in multiagent systems.

What is the relationship between the notions of permission and responsibility in multiagent settings, and how can the proposed framework be integrated with theories of causality and responsibility

The relationship between permission and responsibility in multiagent settings is intricate and often intertwined. Permissions define what actions agents are allowed to take, while responsibility pertains to the accountability for those actions and their consequences. In many cases, having permission to perform an action also implies taking responsibility for the outcomes of that action.
Integrating theories of causality and responsibility into the proposed framework would involve considering the causal relationships between actions, outcomes, and responsibilities. This integration could be achieved by extending the logical system to include modalities that capture causal relationships and attributions of responsibility based on actions taken by agents.
By incorporating causality and responsibility into the framework, we can analyze not only what actions agents are permitted to take but also how those actions lead to specific outcomes and who is responsible for those outcomes. This holistic approach would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the ethical implications of actions in multiagent systems.

Are there other forms of agentive permissions beyond the four discussed in the paper, and how can they be formally captured and incorporated into the logical system

While the paper discusses four forms of agentive permissions (strong permission to ensure, strong permission to admit, weak permission to ensure, and weak permission to admit), there may be other nuanced forms of permissions that could be relevant in multiagent settings.
One potential form could be conditional permissions, where the permissibility of an action is contingent on certain conditions being met. These conditional permissions could introduce a layer of complexity to the logical system, requiring the incorporation of modalities that capture the conditional nature of permissions.
Another form could be collaborative permissions, where multiple agents need to cooperate to achieve a certain outcome. These permissions would involve coordination between agents and could be formalized by introducing modalities that represent collaborative actions and permissions.
To incorporate these additional forms of permissions into the logical system, new modalities and axioms would need to be defined to capture the specific conditions and requirements associated with each type of permission. By expanding the framework to encompass a broader range of agentive permissions, we can provide a more comprehensive analysis of ethical decision-making and agency in multiagent systems.