More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Epistemic Reasoning for Machine Ethics with Situation Calculus

Authors:

Maurice Pagnucco,

David Rajaratnam,

Raynaldio Limarga,

Yang SongAuthors Info & Claims

AIES '21: Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

Pages 814 - 821

https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462586

Published: 30 July 2021 Publication History

Abstract

With the rapid development of autonomous machines such as selfdriving vehicles and social robots, there is increasing realisation that machine ethics is important for widespread acceptance of autonomous machines. Our objective is to encode ethical reasoning into autonomous machines following well-defined ethical principles and behavioural norms. We provide an approach to reasoning about actions that incorporates ethical considerations. It builds on Scherl and Levesque's [29, 30] approach to knowledge in the situation calculus. We show how reasoning about knowledge in a dynamic setting can be used to guide ethical and moral choices, aligned with consequentialist and deontological approaches to ethics. We apply our approach to autonomous driving and social robot scenarios, and provide an implementation framework.

References

[1]

D. Abel, J. MacGlashan, and M. Littman. 2016. Reinforcement learning as a framework for ethical decision making. AAAI Workshop on AI, Ethics, and Society (2016), 1--8.

[2]

Larry Alexander and Michael Moore. 2016. Deontological Ethics. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (Ed.).

[3]

S. Alkoby, A. Rath, and P. Stone. 2019. Teaching social benavior through human reinforcement for ad hoc teamwork - the STAR framework. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems. 1773--1775.

[4]

M. Anderson, S. Anderson, and V. Berenz. 2019. A value-driven eldercare robot: virtual and physical instantiations of a case-supported principle-based behaviour paradigm. Proc. IEEE, Vol. 107, 3 (2019), 526--540.

[5]

F. Berreby, G. Bourgne, and J. Ganascia. 2017. A declarative modular framework for representing and applying ethical principles. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems. 96--104.

[6]

P. Bremner, L. Dennis, M. Fisher, and A. Winfield. 2019. On proactive, transparent, and verifiable ethical reasoning for robots. Proceedings IEEE, Vol. 107, 3 (2019), 541--561.

[7]

V. Conitzer, W. Sinnott-Armstrong, J. Borg, Y. Deng, and M. Kramer. 2017. Moral decision making frameworks for artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the Thirty First Conference on the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. 4831--4835.

[8]

L. Dennis, M. Fisher, M. Slavkovik, and M. Webster. 2016. Formal verification of ethical choices in autonomous systems. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Vol. 77 (2016), 1--14.

Digital Library

[9]

Thomas Eiter, Wolfgang Faber, Nicola Leone, Gerald Pfeifer, and Axel Polleres. 2004. A logic programming approach to knowledge-state planning: Semantics and complexity. ACM Transactions on Compututational Logic, Vol. 5, 2 (2004), 206--263.

Digital Library

[10]

J. Ganascia. 2007. Ethical system formalization using non-monotonic logics. The Cognitive Science conference, (2007), 1013--1018.

[11]

Martin Gebser, Roland Kaminski, Benjamin Kaufmann, Patrick Lü hne, Philipp Obermeier, Max Ostrowski, Javier Romero, Torsten Schaub, Sebastian Schellhorn, and Philipp Wanko. 2018. The Potsdam Answer Set Solving Collection 5.0. Kü nstliche Intell., Vol. 32, 2--3 (2018), 181--182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-018-0528-x

[12]

N. Govindarajulu and S. Bringsjord. 2017. On automating the doctrine of double effect. IJCAI (2017), 4722--4730.

[13]

RM Hare. 1952. The Language of Morals .Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[14]

David Hume. 1975. A Treatise of Human Nature .Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[15]

Rosalind Hursthouse and Glen Pettigrove. 2018. Virtue Ethics. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (Ed.).

[16]

Vladimir Lifschitz. 2002. Answer set programming and plan generation. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 138, 1 (2002), 39 -- 54.

Digital Library

[17]

Raynaldio Limarga, Maurice Pagnucco, Yang Song, and Abhaya Nayak. 2020. Non-monotonic Reasoning for Machine Ethics with Situation Calculus. In Proceedings of the Thirty Third Australasian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 203--215.

Digital Library

[18]

Felix Lindner, Robert Mattmüller, and Bernhard Nebel. 2020. Evaluation of the moral permissibility of action plans. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 287 (2020), 103350.

[19]

John McCarthy. 1958. Programs with commonsense. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Mechnization of Thought Processes, Vol. 1. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, UK, 77--84.

[20]

B. Mermet and G. Simon. 2016. Formal verification of ethical properties in multiagent systems. Workshop on Ethics in the Design of Intelligent Agents (2016), 26--31.

[21]

Robert C. Moore. 1980. Reasoning about Knowledge and Action. Technical Report 191. AI Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.

[22]

Robert C. Moore. 1985. A Formal Theory of Knowledge and Action. In Formal Theories of the Common Sense World, Jerry R. Hobbs and Robert C. Moore (Eds.). Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ, 319--358.

[23]

R. Noothigattu, D. Bouneffouf, N. Mattei, R. Chandra, P. Madan, K. Varshney, M. Campbell, M. Singh, and F. Rossi. 2019. Teaching AI agents ethical values using reinforcement learning and policy orchestration. In Proceedings of the Twenty Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 6377--6381.

[24]

Richard Parry. 2014. Ancient Ethical Theory. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (Ed.).

[25]

T. Powers. 2006. Prospects for a Kantian machine. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 21, 4 (2006), 46--51.

Digital Library

[26]

Raymond Reiter. 1991. The Frame Problem in the Situation Calculus: A Simple Solution (Sometimes) and a Completeness Result for Goal Regression. In Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, Vladimir Lifschitz (Ed.). Academic Press, 359--380.

[27]

Raymond Reiter. 2001. Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems .MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Digital Library

[28]

Javier Romero, Torsten Schaub, and Tran Cao Son. 2017. Generalized Answer Set Planning with Incomplete Information. In Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms co-located with the 14th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, ASPOCP@LPNMR 2017, Espoo, Finland, July 3, 2017 (CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 1868), Bart Bogaerts and Amelia Harrison (Eds.). CEUR-WS.org.

[29]

Richard B. Scherl and Hector J. Levesque. 1993. The Frame Problem and Knowledge-Producing Actions. In Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, 689--695.

[30]

Richard B. Scherl and Hector J. Levesque. 2003. Knowledge, Action, and the Frame Problem. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 144, 1--2 (2003), 1--39.

Digital Library

[31]

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. 2019. Consequentialism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (Ed.).

[32]

Justin Svegliato, Samer B Nashed, and Shlomo Zilberstein. 2020. Ethically compliant planning in moral autonomous systems. In IJCAI Workshop in Artificial Intelligence Safety .

[33]

S. Tolmeijer, M. Kneer, C. Sarasua, M. Christen, and A. Bernstein. 2020. Implementations in machine ethics: a survey. arXiv:2001.07573, (2020), 1--37.

[34]

Peter van Inwagen. 1983. An Essay on Free Will .New York: Oxford University Press.

[35]

Y. Wu and S. Lin. 2018. A low-cost ethics shaping approach for designing reinforcement learning agents. In Proceedings of the Thirty Second Conference on the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. 1687--1694.

Cited By

BELLE V(2023)Toward A Logical Theory Of Fairness and BiasTheory and Practice of Logic Programming10.1017/S147106842300015723:4(865-883)Online publication date: 19-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068423000157
Belle V(2023)Knowledge representation and acquisition for ethical AI: challenges and opportunitiesEthics and Information Technology10.1007/s10676-023-09692-z25:1Online publication date: 11-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10676-023-09692-z
Li LZhang JWang SZhou Q(2022)A Study of Common Principles for Decision-Making in Moral Dilemmas for Autonomous VehiclesBehavioral Sciences10.3390/bs1209034412:9(344)Online publication date: 19-Sep-2022
https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12090344

Index Terms

Epistemic Reasoning for Machine Ethics with Situation Calculus
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Knowledge representation and reasoning
      1. Logic programming and answer set programming
      2. Reasoning about belief and knowledge

Recommendations

Toward Non-Intuition-Based Machine and Artificial Intelligence Ethics: A Deontological Approach Based on Modal Logic
AIES '18: Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

We propose a deontological approach to machine (or AI) ethics that avoids some weaknesses of an intuition-based system, such as that of Anderson and Anderson. In particular, it has no need to deal with conflicting intuitions, and it yields a more ...
Non-monotonic Reasoning for Machine Ethics with Situation Calculus
AI 2020: Advances in Artificial Intelligence
Abstract
With the rapid growth in research on and development of autonomous machines, machine ethics, which used to be “just a theory”, has gained greater practical importance. In this paper, we present a logical approach to machine ethics. Our objective ...
Inductive situation calculus

Temporal reasoning has always been a major test case for knowledge representation formalisms. In this paper, we develop an inductive variant of the situation calculus in ID-logic, classical logic extended with inductive definitions. This logic has been ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

AIES '21: Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

July 2021

1077 pages

ISBN:9781450384735

DOI:10.1145/3461702

Program Chairs:
Marion Fourcade
University of California Berkeley, USA
,
Benjamin Kuipers
University of Michigan, USA
,
Seth Lazar
Australian National University, Australia
,
Deirdre Mulligan
University of California Berkeley, USA

Copyright © 2021 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 30 July 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

AIES '21

Sponsor:

SIGAI

AIES '21: AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

May 19 - 21, 2021

Virtual Event, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 61 of 162 submissions, 38%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
172
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)46
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 09 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

BELLE V(2023)Toward A Logical Theory Of Fairness and BiasTheory and Practice of Logic Programming10.1017/S147106842300015723:4(865-883)Online publication date: 19-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068423000157
Belle V(2023)Knowledge representation and acquisition for ethical AI: challenges and opportunitiesEthics and Information Technology10.1007/s10676-023-09692-z25:1Online publication date: 11-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10676-023-09692-z
Li LZhang JWang SZhou Q(2022)A Study of Common Principles for Decision-Making in Moral Dilemmas for Autonomous VehiclesBehavioral Sciences10.3390/bs1209034412:9(344)Online publication date: 19-Sep-2022
https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12090344

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents