arXiv AI By Thorsten Engesser, Agata Ciabattoni

A Simple Doxastic Deontic Logic for Norm-Guided Decision Making

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper presents a doxastic deontic logic designed for autonomous decision‑making under conflicting norms and uncertain information. It extends Chellas' Minimal Deontic Logic with explicit conditional norms and integrates it with multi‑agent KD45 to allow norms to depend on agents’ beliefs about facts and other norms. The authors formulate a Doxastic Norm Compliance Optimization Problem, distinguishing subjective from objective optimization, and identify conditions where the two coincide and where optimal decisions can be computed via weighted partial MaxSAT in polynomial time.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Sep 15

Moral Rebel Agents: Decision-Making Under Conflicting Obligations

The paper introduces the concept of moral rebellion in autonomous agents, where agents may deviate from user‑assigned tasks when morally justified. Five agent architectures are formalized: an amoral agent, utilitarian agents, deontic agents, utilitarian‑deontic (UD) agents, and dutiful agents. Experiments in a Mini Search‑and‑Rescue domain show distinct trade‑offs among task completion, rescue outcomes, and norm compliance, highlighting the role of commitment‑aware moral reasoning.

By Hector Munoz-Avila, David W. Aha, Paola Rizzo
arXiv AI
Jun 4

DAR: Deontic Reasoning with Agentic Harnesses

arXiv:2606. 05009v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deontic reasoning is the task of answering questions by applying explicit rules and policies to case-specific facts, for example computing tax liability under a statute or determining the outcome of an immigration appeal.

By Guangyao Dou, William Jurayj, Nils Holzenberger, Benjamin Van Durme
arXiv AI
Oct 31

Deogen: Automatic Benchmark Generation for Reasoning over Policies

DeoGen is an automatic, scalable, and parametric benchmark generator for deontic reasoning, which involves applying policy rules to facts to determine verdicts. It autoformalizes policy rules into first‑order logic, builds decision trees whose paths become benchmark entries, and produces combinatorially many entries per tree depth. Evaluations show state‑of‑the‑art models achieve 89‑92% accuracy on verdict‑determining paths but only 22‑40% on paths lacking sufficient information, even when instructed to abstain.

By Sam Kouteili, William Liang, Keeran Murray, Adriana Zhou, Ramesh Viswanathan, Scott Shapiro, Ruzica Piskac