Advertisement

Towards a Logic of Epistemic Theory of Measurement

  • Claudio Masolo
  • Daniele PorelloEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11939)

Abstract

We propose a logic to reason about data collected by a number of measurement systems. The semantic of this logic is grounded on the epistemic theory of measurement that gives a central role to measurement devices and calibration. In this perspective, the lack of evidences (in the available data) for the truth or falsehood of a proposition requires the introduction of a third truth-value (the undetermined). Moreover, the data collected by a given source are here represented by means of a possible world, which provide a contextual view on the objects in the domain. We approach (possibly) conflicting data coming from different sources in a social choice theoretic fashion: we investigate viable operators to aggregate data and we represent them in our logic by means of suitable (minimal) modal operators.

Keywords

Measurement theory Social-choice theory Three-valued logic Logic of evidence Epistemic logic 

References

  1. 1.
    Arló-Costa, H., Pacuit, E.: First-order classical modal logic. Stud. Logica 84(2), 171–210 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avron, A.: Natural 3-valued logics characterization and proof theory. J. Symbolic Logic 56(01), 276–294 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Benthem, J., Pacuit, E.: Dynamic logics of evidence-based beliefs. Stud. Logica 99(1), 61–92 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calvo, T., Kolesárová, A., Komorníková, M., Mesiar, R.: Aggregation operators: properties, classes and construction methods. In: Calvo, T., Mayor, G., Mesiar, R. (eds.) Aggregation Operators. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol. 97, pp. 3–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-1787-4_1CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chellas, B.: Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duddy, C., Piggins, A.: Many-valued judgment aggregation: characterizing the possibility/impossibility boundary. J. Econ. Theory 148(2), 793–805 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Endriss, U., Grandi, U., Porello, D.: Complexity of judgment aggregation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 45, 481–514 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finkelstein, L.: Widely, strongly and weakly defined measurement. Measurement 34, 39–48 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frigerio, A., Giordani, A., Mari, L.: Outline of a general model of measurement. Synthese (Published online: 28 February 2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giordani, A., Mari, L.: Property evaluation types. Measurement 45, 437–452 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hájek, P.: Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic. Trends in Logic, vol. 4. Springer, Netherlands (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kleene, S.: Introduction to Metamathematics. Bibliotheca Mathematica, North-Holland (1952)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    List, C., Puppe, C.: Judgment aggregation: a survey. In: Handbook of Rational and Social Choice. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mari, L.: A quest for the definition of measurement. Measurement 46(8), 2889–2895 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Masolo, C.: Founding properties on measurement. In: Galton, A., Mizoguchi, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Formal Ontology and Information Systems (FOIS 2010), pp. 89–102. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Masolo, C., Benevides, A.B., Porello, D.: The interplay between models and observations. Appl. Ontology 13(1), 41–71 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pauly, M.: Axiomatizing collective judgment sets in a minimal logical language. Synthese 158(2), 233–250 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Penco, C.: Objective and cognitive context. In: Modeling and Using Context, Second International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT 1999, Trento, Italy, September 1999, Proceedings, pp. 270–283 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Porello, D.: A proof-theoretical view of collective rationality. In: IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Beijing, China, 3–9 August 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Porello, D.: Judgement aggregation in non-classical logics. J. Appl. Non-Classical Logics 27(1–2), 106–139 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Porello, D.: Logics for modelling collective attitudes. Fundamenta Informaticae 158(1–3), 239–275 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Porello, D., Endriss, U.: Ontology merging as social choice: judgment aggregation under the open world assumption. J. Logic Comput. 24(6), 1229–1249 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Porello, D., Troquard, N., Peñaloza, R., Confalonieri, R., Galliani, P., Kutz, O.: Two approaches to ontology aggregation based on axiom weakening. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, July 13–19, 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 1942–1948 (2018)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Suppes, P., Krantz, D.M., Luce, R.D., Tversky, A.: Foundations of Measurement. Additive and Polynomial Representations, vol. I. Academic Press, Cambridge (1971)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Ditmarsch, H., van Der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese Library, vol. 337. Springer, Netherlands (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5839-4CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory for Applied OntologyISTC -CNRTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations