research-article

Combining fuzzy logic and formal argumentation for legal interpretation

Authors:

Célia da Costa Pereira,

Andrea G. B. Tettamanzi,

Alessandra Malerba,

Antonino Rotolo,

Leendert van der TorreAuthors Info & Claims

ICAIL '17: Proceedings of the 16th edition of the International Conference on Articial Intelligence and Law

Pages 49 - 58

https://doi.org/10.1145/3086512.3086532

Published: 12 June 2017 Publication History

Abstract

The interpretation of a norm is often uncertain and conflicting. In this paper we propose a model for arguing about legal interpretation, which considers the problems of vagueness. After motivating our adoption of graded categories as a tool to tackle the problem of open texture in legal interpretation, we introduce a model based on fuzzy logic and argumentation. Then, we conduct a case study by using an example from medically assisted reproduction.

References

[1]

Michal Araszkiewicz and Tomasz Zurek. Comprehensive framework embracing the complexity of statutory interpretation. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2015: The Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference, Braga, Portual, December 10--11, 2015, pages 145--148, 2015.

[2]

Michal Araszkiewicz and Tomasz Zurek. Interpreting agents. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2016: The Twenty-Ninth Annual Conference, pages 13--22, 2016.

[3]

Kevin D. Ashley. Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6):753--796, 1991.

Digital Library

[4]

T.J.M. Bench-Capon. The missing link revisited: The role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artif. Intell. Law, 10(1--3):79--94, 2002.

Digital Library

[5]

Trevor Bench-Capon and Marek Sergot. Toward a rule-based representation of open texture in law. In Charles Walter, editor, Computer Power and Legal Language: The Use of Computational Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence, and Expert Systems in the Law, pages 39--60. Praeger, 1988.

[6]

G. Boella, G. Governatori, A. Rotolo, and L. van der Torre. Lex Minus Dixit Quam Voluit, Lex Magis Dixit Quam Voluit: A formal study on legal compliance and interpretation. In P. Casanovas, U. Pagallo, G. Sartor, and G. Ajani, editors, AICOL-I/IVR-XXIV and AICOL-II/JURIX 2009 Revised Selected Papers, pages 162--183, 2009.

Digital Library

[7]

G. Boella, G. Governatori, A. Rotolo, and L. van der Torre. A logical understanding of legal interpretation. In F. Lin, U. Sattler, and M. Truszczynski, editors, KR 2010, 2010.

Digital Library

[8]

Célia da Costa Pereira, Andrea G. B. Tettamanzi, and Serena Villata. Changing one's mind: Erase or rewind? possibilistic belief revision with fuzzy argumentation based on trust. In Toby Walsh, editor, Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'11), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, July 16--22, 2011, pages 164--171. AAAI, 2011.

Digital Library

[9]

Anthony D'Amato. Legal uncertainty. California Law Review, 71(1):1--55, 1983.

[10]

Didier Dubois and Henri Prade. Practical methods for constructing possibility distributions. Int. J. Intell. Syst., 31(3):215--239, 2016.

Digital Library

[11]

J. Hage. Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic. Kluwer, 1997.

[12]

H. L. A. Hart. The Concept of Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994.

[13]

Ph. Heck. Begriffsbildung und Interessensjurisprudenz. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 1932.

[14]

Juergen Hollatz. Analogy making in legal reasoning with neural networks and fuzzy logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7:289--301, 1999.

Digital Library

[15]

Paul Kay and Chad K. McDaniel. The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms. Language, 54(3):610--646, September 1978.

[16]

G. Lakoff. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987.

[17]

G. Lakoff and M. Jonhson. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1980.

[18]

D. Liebwald. Law's capacity for vagueness. Int J Semiot Law, 26:391--423, 2013.

[19]

D.N. MacCormick and R.S. Summers, editors. Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study. Ashgate, 1991.

[20]

Alessandra Malerba, Antonino Rotolo, and Guido Governatori. Interpretation across legal systems. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2016: The Twenty-Ninth Annual Conference, pages 83--92, 2016.

[21]

Sanjay Modgil and Henry Prakken. The ASPIC⁺ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument & Computation, 5(1):31--62, 2014.

[22]

M. Navara. Triangular norms and conorms. Scholarpedia, 2(3):2398, 2007. revision #137537.

[23]

Aleksander Peczenik. On Law and Reason. Kluwer, 1989.

[24]

Lothar Philipps. Vague legal concepts and fuzzy logic: An attempt to determine the required period of waiting after traffic accidents. Informatica e Diritto, II:37--51, 1993.

[25]

H. Prakken. An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artif. Intell. Law, 10:113--133, 2002.

Digital Library

[26]

Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:331--368, 1996.

Digital Library

[27]

Antonino Rotolo, Guido Governatori, and Giovanni Sartor. Deontic defeasible reasoning in legal interpretation: two options for modelling interpretive arguments. In Ted Sichelman and Katie Atkinson, editors, ICAIL 2015, pages 99--108, 2015.

Digital Library

[28]

G. Sartor. Legal reasoning: A cognitive approach to the law, volume 5 of A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence. Springer, Berlin, 2005.

[29]

B. Schweizer and A. Sklar. Statistical metric spaces. Pacific J. Math., 10(1):313--334, 1960.

[30]

B. Schweizer and A. Sklar. Probabilistic metric spaces. North Holland series in probability and applied mathematics. North Holland, 1983.

[31]

S.J. Shapiro. Legality. Harvard University Press, 2011.

[32]

D.B. Skalak and E.L. Rissland. Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining. Artif. Intell. Law, 1:3--44, 1992.

Digital Library

[33]

N. Tamani and M. Croitoru. A quantitative preference-based structured argumentation system for decision support. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), pages 1408--1415, 2014.

[34]

Amos Tversky. Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4):327--352, 1977.

[35]

W. Vanpaemel, G. Storms, and B. Ons. A varying abstraction model for categorization. In B. Bara, L. Barsalou, and M. Bucciarelli, editors, Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 2277--2282, Mahwah, NJ, 2005. Lawrence Erlbaum.

[36]

L. A. Zadeh. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8:338--353, 1965.

[37]

Tomasz Zurek and Michal Araszkiewicz. Modeling teleological interpretation. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL '13, Rome, Italy, June 10--14, 2013, pages 160--168, 2013.

Digital Library

Cited By

Ceccon L(2023)Image Learning at the Crossroads Between Human and Artificial IntelligenceProceedings of the 3rd International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Image and Imagination10.1007/978-3-031-25906-7_114(1038-1049)Online publication date: 6-Apr-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25906-7_114
Armgardt M(2021)A Formal Model for Analogies in Civil Law ReasoningNew Developments in Legal Reasoning and Logic10.1007/978-3-030-70084-3_8(171-183)Online publication date: 17-Dec-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70084-3_8
Zagorulko YDomanov OSery ASidorova EBorovikova O(2020)Analysis of the Persuasiveness of Argumentation in Popular Science TextsArtificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-030-59535-7_26(351-367)Online publication date: 22-Sep-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59535-7_26

Index Terms

Combining fuzzy logic and formal argumentation for legal interpretation
1. Applied computing
  1. Law, social and behavioral sciences
    1. Law
2. Theory of computation
  1. Logic

Recommendations

How to justify a backing’s eligibility for a warrant: the justification of a legal interpretation in a hard case
Abstract
The Toulmin model has been proved useful in law and argumentation theory. This model describes the basic process in justifying a claim, which comprises six elements, i.e., claim (C), data (D), warrant (W), backing (B), qualifier (Q), and rebuttal (...
A new view of fuzzy hypernear-rings

In this survey article, we first introduce the concept of quasi-coincidence of a fuzzy interval value with an interval valued fuzzy set. This concept is a generalized concept of quasi-coincidence of a fuzzy point within a fuzzy set. By using this new ...
Type-n fuzzy logic - the next level of type-1 and type-2 fuzzy logic

The level of uncertainty in a system can be reduced by using type-2 fuzzy logic, which has a superior ability to handle linguistic uncertainties by modelling ambiguity and unreliability of information. Unfortunately, type-2 fuzzy sets are harder to use ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ICAIL '17: Proceedings of the 16th edition of the International Conference on Articial Intelligence and Law

June 2017

299 pages

ISBN:9781450348911

DOI:10.1145/3086512

Conference Chair:
Jeroen Keppens
King's College London, United Kingdom
,
Program Chair:
Guido Governatori
Data61, CSIRO, Australia

Copyright © 2017 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGAI: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 12 June 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

ICAIL '17

Sponsor:

SIGAI

ICAIL '17: Sixteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

June 12 - 16, 2017

London, United Kingdom

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
159
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)6
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 11 Aug 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Ceccon L(2023)Image Learning at the Crossroads Between Human and Artificial IntelligenceProceedings of the 3rd International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Image and Imagination10.1007/978-3-031-25906-7_114(1038-1049)Online publication date: 6-Apr-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25906-7_114
Armgardt M(2021)A Formal Model for Analogies in Civil Law ReasoningNew Developments in Legal Reasoning and Logic10.1007/978-3-030-70084-3_8(171-183)Online publication date: 17-Dec-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70084-3_8
Zagorulko YDomanov OSery ASidorova EBorovikova O(2020)Analysis of the Persuasiveness of Argumentation in Popular Science TextsArtificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-030-59535-7_26(351-367)Online publication date: 22-Sep-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59535-7_26

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents