Cited By
View all- Kim MXu YGoebel RSatoh K(2014)Answering Yes/No Questions in Legal Bar ExamsNew Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-319-10061-6_14(199-213)Online publication date: 6-Nov-2014
Towards a dynamic metalogic implementation of legal argumentation
Pages 91 - 95
Abstract
Human argumentation in general and legal dispute in particular can be seen as highly dynamic and non-monotonic to its nature. To us this suggests that logical analysis of legal argumentation needs to be conducted in a dynamical and flexible setting in which the interaction is influenced by the parties' previous arguments. To express such approximations of legal reasoning as computational formalizations of argument, applications require dealing with knowledge representations, non-monotonic logics and a game-model able to capture the interaction as a debate between two or more disputing parties. In this paper we present some intuitions regarding the features of a full implementation and accompanying software for defeasible adversarial legal argumentation.
References
[1]
G. Antoniou, D. Billington, G. Governatori, and M. Maher. A flexible framework for defeasible logics. In 17th American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2000), 2000.
[2]
A. Bondarenko, P. Dung, R. Kowalski, and F. Toni. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic framework for non-monotonic reasoning. In A. Nerode and L. P. et. al., editors, Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, pages 171--189. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993.
[3]
G. Brewka. A reconstruction of Rescher's theory of formal disputation based on default logic. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 336--370, 1994.
[4]
C. I. Chesñevar, A. G. Maguitman, and R. P. Loui. Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys, 32(4), 2000.
[5]
J. Eriksson Lundström. On the Formal Modeling of Games of Language and Adversarial Argumentation - A Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence Approach. 2009.
[6]
J. Eriksson Lundström, A. Hamfelt, and J. F. Nilsson. Legal rules and argumentation in a metalogic framework. In JURIX 2007 Leiden, pages 39--48. ACM Press, 2007.
[7]
J. Eriksson Lundström, A. Hamfelt, and J. F. Nilsson. A common framework for board games and argumentation games. In EJC 2008. IOS Press, 2008.
[8]
T. Gordon. The Pleadings Game: An artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2(4), 1993.
[9]
G. Governatori, G. Antoniou, D. Billington, and M. J. Maher. Argumentation semantics for defeasible logics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 14(5), 2004.
[10]
H. Hart. The Concept of Law. Clarendon, Oxford, 1961.
[11]
P. Hill and J. Lloyd. Eds. H. Abramson and M. H. Rogers Meta-Programming in Logic Programming, chapter Analysis of Meta-Programs. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1989.
[12]
F. Maier and D. Nute. Ambiguity propagating defeasible logic and the well founded semantics. Lecture Notes in Artifical Intelligence LNAI 4160, pages 306--318, 2006.
[13]
N. J. Nilsson. Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis. Morgan Kaufmann California, 1998.
[14]
D. Nute. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume 3, chapter Defeasible logic, pages 353--395. Oxford University Press, 1994.
[15]
D. Nute, M. Covington, and A. Vellino. Prolog Programming in Depth. Scott Foresman and Co Chicago, 1998.
[16]
H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. AI and Law, 2(4):231--287, 1998.
[17]
H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Formalising arguments about the burden of persuation. In ICAIL 2007, pages 97--106. ACM Press, 2007.
[18]
H. Prakken and G. Vreeswijk. Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. Eds. D. M. Gabbay Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pages 219--318, 2002.
[19]
R. Reiter. A logic for default reasoning. AI, 13(1):81--132, 1980.
Index Terms
- Towards a dynamic metalogic implementation of legal argumentation
Recommendations
Legal rules and argumentation in a metalogic framework
Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual ConferenceIn this paper we show how to address legal argumentation as a dialectic process using a metalogic defeasible framework. We provide a formal model in which, the argumentation of the parties can be analyzed computationally. Further we argue that the ...
A metalogic formalization of legal argumentation as game trees with defeasible reasoning
ICAIL '05: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and lawWe outline an approach to logical analysis and formalization of legal argumentation and dispute as game trees, wellknown in AI, using metalogic programming. The argument/counter-argument dialectic is facilitated through defeasible reasoning, and the ...
A dynamic metalogic argumentation framework implementation
RuleML'2011: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Rule-based reasoning, programming, and applicationsOne of the main challenges that faces the AI-community is to express close approximations of human reasoning as computational formalizations of argument. In this paper we present a full implementation and accompanying software for defeasible adversarial ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
June 2011
270 pages
Copyright © 2011 Authors.
Sponsors
- The International Association for Artificial Intelligence and Law
- AAAI: Am Assoc for Artifical Intelligence
- PittLaw: U. of Pittsburgh School of Law
In-Cooperation
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 06 June 2011
Check for updates
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
ICAIL '11
Sponsor:
- AAAI
- PittLaw
ICAIL '11: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
June 6 - 10, 2011
Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 118Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)2
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 08 Mar 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Kim MXu YGoebel RSatoh K(2014)Answering Yes/No Questions in Legal Bar ExamsNew Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-319-10061-6_14(199-213)Online publication date: 6-Nov-2014
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in