Roberta Calegari
ABSTRACT
In this paper we provide an account of the burden of persuasion in the context of structured argumentation. A formal model for the burden of persuasion is defined, discussed, and used to capture the role of the burden of persuasion in adjudicating conflicts between conflicting arguments and in determining the dialectical status of arguments. We consider how our model can also capture adversarial burdens of proof, namely, those cases in which failure to establish an argument for a proposition burdened with persuasion entails establishing the complementary proposition.
- Pietro Baroni, Martin Caminada, and Massimiliano Giacomin. 2011. An introduction to argumentation semantics. The knowledge engineering review 26, 4 (2011), 365--410. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Pietro Baroni and Régis Riveret. 2019. Enhancing Statement Evaluation in Argumentation via Multi-labelling Systems. Journal Artificial Intelligence Research 66 (2019), 793--860. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roberta Calegari, Andrea Omicini, and Giovanni Sartor. 2020. Argumentation and Logic Programming for Explainable and Ethical AI. In XAI.it 2020 - Italian Workshop on Explainable Artificial Intelligence 2020 (CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 2742). Sun SITE Central Europe, RWTH Aachen University, Italy, 55--68.Google Scholar
- Roberta Calegari and Giovanni Sartor. 2020. Burden of Persuasion in Argumentation. In Proceedings 36th International Conference on Logic Programming (Technical Communications), ICLP 2020 (Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 325). OPA, Rende (CS), Italy, 151--163. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roberta Calegari and Giovanni Sartor. 2020. A Model for the Burden of Persuasion in Argumentation. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2020: The Thirty-third Annual Conference (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 334), Serena Villata, Jakub Harašta, and Petr Křemen (Eds.). IOS, Brno, Czech Republic, 13--22. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Martin Caminada and Leila Amgoud. 2007. On the Evaluation of Argumentation Formalisms. Artificial Intelligence 171, 5--6 (2007), 286--310. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Arthur M. Farley and Kathleen Freeman. 1995. Burden of Proof in Legal Argumentation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, Maryland USA, 156--164. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken, and Douglas Walton. 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171, 10 (2007), 875--896. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thomas F. Gordon and Douglas N. Walton. 2009. Proof Burdens and Standards. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Boston, MA, 239--258. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ulrike Hahn and Mike Oaksford. 2007. The Burden of Proof and Its Role in Argumentation. Argumentation 21 (2007), 36--61. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ronald E. Leenes. 2001. Burden of Proof in Dialogue Games and Dutch Civil Procedure. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, Missouri USA, 109--18. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sanjay Modgil and Henry Prakken. 2010. Reasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks. In Proceedings of COMMA 2010, Computational Models of Argumentation. IOS, Italy, 347--58. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sanjay Modgil and Henry Prakken. 2014. The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument & Computation 5, 1 (2014), 31--62. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henry Prakken. 2010. An Abstract Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments. Argument and Computation 1 (2010), 93--124. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henry Prakken, Chris Reed, and Douglas N. Walton. 2005. Dialogues about the Burden of Proof. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, Bologna, Italy, 115--124. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor. 1996. Rules about Rules: Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (1996), 331--68. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor. 2010. A Logical Analysis of Burdens of Proof. Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic 1 (2010), 223--253.Google Scholar
- Gerard Vreeswijk. 1997. Abstract Argumentation Systems. Artificial Intelligence 90, 1--2 (1997), 225--279. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Douglas Walton. 1996. Arguments from Ignorance. Pennsylvania State University Press, Pennsylvania. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Douglas Walton. 2014. Burden of proof, presumption and argumentation. Cambridge University Press, USA. Google ScholarCross Ref
- C.R. Williams. 2003. Burdens and standards in civil litigation. Sydney Law Review 25 (2003), 165--188.Google Scholar
- The burden of persuasion in structured argumentation
Recommendations
Burdens of Persuasion and Standards of Proof in Structured Argumentation
Logic and ArgumentationAbstractIn this paper we provide an account of the burden of persuasion, in the context of structured argumentation. First, burdens of proof in legal proceedings are discussed in general, distinguishing the burdens of production and the burdens of ...
Modelling Judicial Context in Argumentation Frameworks
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008Much work using argumentation frameworks treats arguments as entirely abstract, related by a uniform attack relation which always succeeds unless the attacker can itself be defeated. However, this does not seem adequate for legal argumentation. Some ...
A structured argumentation system with backing and undercutting
This work introduces Extended Defeasible Logic Programming (E-DeLP), a structured argumentation system enabling the expression of reasons for and against using defeasible rules. E-DeLPextends the formalism of Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) by ...
Comments