References

  1. Aldo Iván Ramírez Abarca & Jan Broersen (2019): A Logic of Objective and Subjective Oughts. In: European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, pp. 629–641, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-19570-0_41.
  2. Aldo Iván Ramírez Abarca & Jan Broersen (2019): Stit Semantics for Epistemic Notions Based on Information Disclosure in Interactive Settings. In: International Workshop on Dynamic Logic. Springer, pp. 171–189, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-38808-9_11.
  3. Konstantine Arkoudas, Selmer Bringsjord & Paul Bello (2005): Toward ethical robots via mechanized deontic logic. In: AAAI Fall Symposium on Machine Ethics, pp. 17–23.
  4. Alexandru Baltag & Sonja Smets (2006): Conditional doxastic models: A qualitative approach to dynamic belief revision. Electronic notes in theoretical computer science 165, pp. 5–21, doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2006.05.034.
  5. Alexandru Baltag & Sonja Smets (2006): The logic of conditional doxastic actions: a theory of dynamic multi-agent belief revision. In: Proceedings of ESSLLI Workshop on Rationality and Knowledge, pp. 13–30.
  6. Alexandru Baltag & Sonja Smets (2008): Probabilistic dynamic belief revision. Synthese 165(2), pp. 179, doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9369-8.
  7. N. Belnap, M. Perloff & M. Xu (2001): Facing the future: agents and choices in our indeterminist world. Oxford University Press.
  8. Adam Bjorndahl, Joseph Y Halpern & Rafael Pass (2017): Reasoning about rationality. Games and Economic Behavior 104, pp. 146–164, doi:10.1016/j.geb.2017.03.006.
  9. Oliver Board (2004): Dynamic interactive epistemology. Games and Economic Behavior 49(1), pp. 49–80, doi:10.1016/j.geb.2003.10.006.
  10. Craig Boutilier (1995): On the revision of probabilistic belief states. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 36(1), pp. 158–183, doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1040308833.
  11. Selmer Bringsjord, Konstantine Arkoudas & Paul Bello (2006): Toward a general logicist methodology for engineering ethically correct robots. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21(4), pp. 38–44, doi:10.1109/MIS.2006.82.
  12. Jan Broersen (2013): Probabilistic stit logic and its decomposition. International journal of approximate reasoning 54(4), pp. 467–477, doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2012.08.007.
  13. Jan Broersen & Aldo Iván Ramírez Abarca (2018): Formalising Oughts and Practical Knowledge without Resorting to Action Types. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1877–1879.
  14. Bruno De Finetti (1936): Les probabilités nulles. Gauthier-Villars.
  15. Hein Duijf & Jan Broersen (2016): Representing strategies. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.03355, doi:10.4204/EPTCS.218.2.
  16. HWA Duijf (2018): Let's do it!: Collective responsibility, joint action, and participation. Utrecht University.
  17. Konstantinos Gkikas (2015): Stable Beliefs and Conditional Probability Spaces. Universiteit van Amsterdam.
  18. Joseph Y Halpern (2010): Lexicographic probability, conditional probability, and nonstandard probability. Games and Economic Behavior 68(1), pp. 155–179, doi:10.1016/j.geb.2009.03.013.
  19. Peter J Hammond (1994): Elementary non-Archimedean representations of probability for decision theory and games. In: Patrick Suppes: scientific philosopher. Springer, pp. 25–61, doi:10.1007/978-94-011-0774-7_2.
  20. John C Harsanyi (1967): Games with incomplete information played by Bayesianplayers, I–III Part I. The basic model. Management science 14(3), pp. 159–182, doi:10.1287/mnsc.14.3.159.
  21. John Horty (2019): Epistemic Oughts in Stit Semantics. Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy 6, doi:10.3998/ergo.12405314.0006.004.
  22. John Horty & Eric Pacuit (2017): Action types in stit semantics. The Review of Symbolic Logic 10(4), pp. 617–637, doi:10.1017/S1755020317000016.
  23. John F. Horty (2001): Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/0195134613.001.0001.
  24. Richard C Jeffrey (1965): Ethics and the Logic of Decision. The Journal of Philosophy 62(19), pp. 528–539, doi:10.2307/2023748.
  25. Edi Karni (2014): Axiomatic foundations of expected utility and subjective probability. In: Handbook of the Economics of Risk and Uncertainty 1. Elsevier, pp. 1–39, doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53685-3.00001-5.
  26. Daniel Lehmann & Menachem Magidor (1992): What does a conditional knowledge base entail?. Artificial intelligence 55(1), pp. 1–60, doi:10.1016/0004-3702(92)90041-U.
  27. Emiliano Lorini, Dominique Longin & Eunate Mayor (2014): A logical analysis of responsibility attribution: emotions, individuals and collectives. Journal of Logic and Computation 24(6), pp. 1313–1339, doi:10.1093/logcom/ext072.
  28. Yuko Murakami (2004): Utilitarian deontic logic. AiML-2004: Advances in Modal Logic 287.
  29. Eric Pacuit & Olivier Roy (2017): Epistemic Foundations of Game Theory. In: Edward N. Zalta: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2017 edition. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  30. Martin Peterson (2017): An introduction to decision theory. Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/9781316585061.
  31. Karl Raimund Popper (1968): The Logic of Scientific Discovery.(Revised Edition.).. Hutchinson.
  32. Alfréd Rényi (1955): On a new axiomatic theory of probability. Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungarica 6(3-4), pp. 285–335, doi:10.1007/BF02024393.
  33. Abraham Robinson (1973): Function theory on some nonarchimedean fields. The American Mathematical Monthly 80(6), pp. 87–109, doi:10.2307/3038223.
  34. L.J. Savage (1954): The Foundations of Statistics. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
  35. Keiran Sharpe (2018): On risk and uncertainty, and objective versus subjective probability. Economic Record 94, pp. 49–72, doi:10.1111/1475-4932.12403.
  36. Katie Steele & H. Orri Stefánsson (2016): Decision Theory. In: Edward N. Zalta: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, winter 2016 edition. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  37. Allard Tamminga (2013): Deontic logic for strategic games. Erkenntnis 78(1), pp. 183–200, doi:10.1007/s10670-011-9349-0.
  38. Bas C Van Fraassen (1995): Fine-grained opinion, probability, and the logic of full belief. Journal of Philosophical logic 24(4), pp. 349–377, doi:10.1007/BF01048352.
  39. Heinrich Wansing (2006): Doxastic decisions, epistemic justification, and the logic of agency. Philosophical Studies 128(1), pp. 201–227, doi:10.1007/s11098-005-4063-x.
  40. Ming Xu (1994): Decidability of deliberative stit theories with multiple agents. In: International Conference on Temporal Logic. Springer, pp. 332–348, doi:10.1007/BFb0013997.
  41. Ming Xu (2015): Combinations of Stit with Ought and Know. Journal of Philosophical Logic 44(6), pp. 851–877, doi:10.1007/s10992-015-9365-7.
Comments and questions to: eptcs@eptcs.org
For website issues: webmaster@eptcs.org