Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Computing Argumentation for Decision Making in Legal Disputes

  • Conference paper
Computable Models of the Law

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4884))

Abstract

In this paper, we present a decision support system for lawyers. This system is built upon an argumentation framework for decision making. A logic language is used as a concrete data structure for holding the statements like knowledge, goals, and decisions. Different priorities are attached to these items corresponding to the uncertainty of the knowledge about the circumstances, the lawyer’s preferences, and the expected utilities of sentences. These concrete data structures consist of information providing the backbone of arguments. Due to the abductive nature of practical reasoning, arguments are built by reasoning backwards, and possibly by making suppositions over missing information. Moreover, arguments are defined as tree-like structures. In this way, our computer system, implemented in Prolog, suggests some actions and provides an interactive and intelligible explanation of this solution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: The role of logic in computational models of legal argument: a critical survey. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2408, pp. 343–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H.: Justifying actions by accruing arguments. In: Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, pp. 247–258. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Clemen, R.T.: Making Hard Decisions. Duxbury Press (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Maths and AI 34(1-3), 197–215 (2002)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Schweimeier, R., Schroeder, M.: Notions of attack and justified arguments for extended logic programs. In: van Harmelen, F. (ed.) Proc. of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 536–540. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90(1-2), 225–279 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Vreeswijk, G., Prakken, H.: Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In: Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L., Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P. (eds.) JELIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1919, pp. 239–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Gartner, D., Toni, F.: CaSAPI: a system for credulous and sceptical argumentation. In: Simari, G., Torroni, P. (eds.) Proc. of Workshop on Argumentation for Non-monotonic Reasoning, pp. 80–95 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170(2), 114–159 (2006)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Fox, J., Parsons, S.: On using arguments for reasoning about actions and values. In: Doyle, J., Thomason, R.H. (eds.) Proceedings of the Working Papers of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Qualitative Preferences in Deliberation and Practical Reasoning, pp. 55–63. Standford, Menlo Park (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Oliver, R.M., Smith, J.Q.: Influence Diagrams, Belief Nets and Decision Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Raz, J. (ed.): Practical Reasoning. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Leila Amgoud, S.K.: On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 192–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Thomason, R.H.: Desires and defaults: A framework for planning with inferred goals. In: Proc. of the seventh International Confenrence on Principle of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 702–713 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In: Proc. of the 9h International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR), pp. 212–218 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rahwan, I., Amgoud, L.: An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In: Proc. of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), Hakodate, Japan, pp. 347–354. ACM Press, New York (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Guillermo, R., Simari, A.J., García, M.C.: Actions, planning and defeasible reasoning. In: Proc. of the 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR), Whistler BC, Canada, pp. 377–384 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kakas, A., Moraitis, P.: Argumentative-based decision-making for autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 883–890. ACM Press, New York (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese, special issue on Knowledge, Rationality and Action 152(2), 157–206 (2006)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Ouerdane, W., Maudet, N., Tsoukias, A.: Arguing over actions that involve multiple criteria: A critical review. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4724, pp. 308–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Comparing decisions in an argumentation-based setting. In: Proc. of the 11th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR), Session on Argumentation, Dialogue, and Decision Making, Lake District, UK, pp. 426–432 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Explaining qualitative decision under uncertainty by argumentation. In: Proc. of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), Boston, pp. 16–20 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Pisa, via F. Buonarroti, 2, I-56127, Pisa, Italy

    Maxime Morge

Authors
  1. Maxime Morge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Law and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, 08193, Barcelona, Spain

    Pompeu Casanovas  & Núria Casellas  & 

  2. Badia Fiesolana, European University Institute, Via dei Roccettini 9, 50016, San Domenico di Fiesole, Florence, Italy

    Giovanni Sartor

  3. CIRSFID, Università di Bologna, Via Galliera 3, 40121, Bologna, Italy

    Rossella Rubino

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Morge, M. (2008). Computing Argumentation for Decision Making in Legal Disputes. In: Casanovas, P., Sartor, G., Casellas, N., Rubino, R. (eds) Computable Models of the Law. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4884. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-85568-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-85569-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics