Abstract
Triple-A is an abstract argumentation model, distinguishing the global argumentation of judges from the local argumentation of accused, prosecutors, witnesses, lawyers, and experts. In Triple-A, agents have partial knowledge of the arguments and attacks of other agents, and they decide autonomously whether to accept or reject their own arguments, and whether to bring their arguments forward in court. The arguments accepted by the judge are based on a game-theoretic equilibrium among the argumentation of the other agents. The Triple-A theory can be used to distinguish various direct and indirect ways in which the arguments of an agent can be used against his or her other arguments.
This work was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17H06103. Moreover, the third author has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skodowska-Curie grant agreement No 690974 for the project MIREL: MIning and REasoning with Legal texts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The other direction (i.e. for each \(\mathscr {F}_1 \in X_1(\mathscr {F})\)) is redundant by Proposition 1.
- 2.
We can define multiagent semantics also as a set of arguments only, as follows: A stable MAS extension E is a subset of \(\mathcal{A}\) such that there exists a sub-framework \(\mathcal{F'}\) of \(\mathcal{F}\) such that .... As suggested by Massiliano Giacomin, there seems to be no loss of information using just extensions. We did not do so, because the resulting definition seems to become more difficult to read.
References
Al-abdulkarim, L., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.: ANGELIC secrets: bridging from factors to facts in US trade secrets. In: JURIX, pp. 113–118 (2016)
Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: A formal analyis of the role of argumentation in negotiation dialogues. J. Log. Comput. 5, 957–978 (2012)
Arisaka, R., Satoh, K.: Coalition formability semantics with conflict-eliminable sets of arguments (Extended Abstracts). In: AAMAS, pp. 1469–1471 (2017)
Awad, E., Booth, R., Tohmé, F., Rahwan, I.: Judgement aggregation in multi-agent argumentation. J. Log. Comput. 27(1), 227–259 (2017)
Baroni, P., Boella, G., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., van der Torre, L.W.N., Villata, S.: On the input/output behavior of argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 217, 144–197 (2014)
Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: AFRA: argumentation framework with recursive attacks. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 52(1), 19–37 (2011)
Bench-Capon, T.: Representation of case law as an argumentation framework. In: JURIX, pp. 53–62 (2002)
Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H.: Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artif. Intell. Law 18(2), 153–174 (2010)
Bench-Capon, T., Sartor, G.: A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif. Intell. 150, 97–143 (2003)
Bex, F., Bench-Capon, T., Atkinson, K.: Did he jump or was he pushed? Abductive practical reasoning. Artif. Intell. Law 17(2), 79–99 (2009)
Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.: Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artif. Intell. Law 11(2), 125–165 (2003)
Bodanza, G.A., Auday, M.R.: Social argument justification: some mechanisms and conditions for their coincidence. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds.) ECSQARU 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5590, pp. 95–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02906-6_10
Brewka, G., Strass, H., Ellmauthaer, S., Wallner, J., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks revisited. In: IJCAI (2010)
Caminada, M., Pigozzi, G.: On judgement aggregation in abstract argumentation. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 22(1), 64–102 (2011)
Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S.: On the merging of dung’s argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 730–753 (2007)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)
Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M.: Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract. Artif. Intell. Law 17, 167–182 (2008)
Gordon, T., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif. Intell. 171, 875–896 (2007)
Governatori, G., Olivieri, F., Rotolo, A., Scannapieco, S., Sartor, G.: Two faces of strategic argumentation in the law. In: JURIX, pp. 81–90 (2014)
Grossi, D., van der Hoek, W.: Audience-based uncertainty in abstract argument games. In: IJCAI, pp. 143–149 (2013)
Liao, B.: Toward incremental computation of argumentation semantics: a decomposition-based approach. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 67(3–4), 319–358 (2013)
Okuno, K., Takahashi, K.: Argumentation system with changes of an agent’s knowledge base. In: IJCAI vol. 09, pp. 226–232 (2009)
Parsons, S., Sklar, E.: How agents alter their beliefs after an argumentation-based dialogue. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4049, pp. 297–312. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11794578_19
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif. Intell. Law 4, 331–368 (1996)
Procaccia, A., Rosenschein, J.: Extensive-form argumentation games. In: EUMAS, pp. 312–322 (2005)
Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Argumentation and game theory. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 321–339. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_16
Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Mechanism design for abstract argumentation. In: AAMAS, pp. 1031–1038 (2008)
Rienstra, T., Perotti, A., Villata, S., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L.: Multi-sorted argumentation. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7132, pp. 215–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_14
Riveret, R., Prakken, H.: Heuristics in argumentation: a game theory investigation. In: COMMA, pp. 324–335 (2008)
Tohmé, F.A., Bodanza, G.A., Simari, G.R.: Aggregation of attack relations: a social-choice theoretical analysis of defeasibility criteria. In: Hartmann, S., Kern-Isberner, G. (eds.) FoIKS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4932, pp. 8–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77684-0_4
Villata, S., Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Attack semantics for abstract argumentation. In: IJCAI 2011, Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, 16–22 July 2011, pp. 406–413 (2011)
Acknowledgement
We thank Massimiliano Giacomin for insightful feedback on an earlier version of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Arisaka, R., Satoh, K., van der Torre, L. (2018). Anything You Say May Be Used Against You in a Court of Law. In: Pagallo, U., Palmirani, M., Casanovas, P., Sartor, G., Villata, S. (eds) AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems. AICOL AICOL AICOL AICOL AICOL 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10791. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00178-0_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00178-0_29
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00177-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00178-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)