Cited By
View all- Rotolo ASartor G(2023)Argumentation and explanation in the lawFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence10.3389/frai.2023.11305596Online publication date: 4-Sep-2023
A Formal Framework for Combining Legal Reasoning Methods
Abstract
This paper proposes a novel argumentation-based approach to combine legal-reasoning methods that each solve a subproblem of an overall legal problem. The methods can be of any nature (for instance, logical, case-based or probabilistic), as long as their input-output behaviour can be described at the metalevel with deductive or defeasible rules. The model is formulated in the ASPIC+ framework, to profit from its metatheory and explanation methods, and to allow for disagreement about how to solve a subproblem. The model is not meant to be directly implementable but to serve as a semantics for architectures and implementations.
References
[1]
K.D. Ashley and S. Brüninghaus. 2009. Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (2009), 125--165.
[2]
P. Baroni, G. Boella, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, L. van der Torre, and S. Villata. 2014. On the Input/Output behavior of argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 217 (2014), 144--197.
[3]
G. Brewka and T. Eiter. 2007. Equilibria in heterogeneous nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In Proceedings of the 22nd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-07). 385--390.
[4]
A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi, and F. Turini. 1994. Modular Logic Programming. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 16 (1994), 1361--1398.
[5]
R. Calegari and G. Sartor. 2021. Burdens of persuasion and standards of proof in structured argumentation. In Logic and Argumentation. 4th International Conference, CLAR 2021 Hangzhou, China, October 20-22, 2021, Proceedings, P. Baroni C. Benzmüller and Y.N. Wáng (Eds.). Number 13040 in Springer Lecture Notes in AI. Springer, 40--59.
[6]
P.M. Dung. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77 (1995), 321--357.
[7]
P.M. Dung and G. Sartor. 2011. The modular logic of private international law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (2011), 233--261.
[8]
T.F. Gordon, H. Prakken, and D.N. Walton. 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171 (2007), 875--896.
[9]
S. Modgil and H. Prakken. 2018. Abstract rule-based argumentation. In Handbook of Formal Argumentation, P. Baroni, D. Gabbay, M. Giacomin, and L. van der Torre (Eds.). Vol. 1. College Publications, London, 286--361.
[10]
H. Prakken. 1999. Dialectical proof theory for defeasible argumentation with defeasible priorities (preliminary report). In Formal Models of Agents (Springer Lecture Notes in AI, 1760), J.-J.Ch. Meyer and P.-Y. Schobbens (Eds.). Springer Verlag, Berlin, 202--215.
[11]
H. Prakken. 2001. Modelling defeasibility in law: logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae 48 (2001), 253--271.
[12]
H. Prakken. 2008. Combining modes of reasoning: an application of abstract argumentation. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2008) (Springer Lecture Notes in AI, 5293), S. Hoelldobler, C. Lutz, and H. Wansing (Eds.). Springer Verlag, Berlin, 349--361.
[13]
H. Prakken. 2020. A new use case for argumentation support tools: supporting discussions of Bayesian analyses of complex criminal cases. Artificial Intelligence and Law 28 (2020), 27--49.
[14]
H. Prakken and G. Sartor. 2011. On modelling burdens and standards of proof in structured argumentation. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2011: The Twenty-fourth Annual Conference, K. Atkinson (Ed.). IOS Press, Amsterdam etc., 83--92.
[15]
B. Schafer. 2009. Twelve angry men or one good woman? Asymmetric relations in evidentiary reasoning. In Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic, H. Kaptein, H. Prakken, and B. Verheij (Eds.). Ashgate Publishing, Farnham, 255--282.
[16]
F. Toni. 2014. A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation. Argument and Computation 5 (2014), 89--117.
Index Terms
- A Formal Framework for Combining Legal Reasoning Methods
Recommendations
Legal shifts in the process of proof
ICAIL '11: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and LawIn this paper, we continue our research on a hybrid narrative-argumentative approach to evidential reasoning in the law by showing the interaction between factual reasoning and legal reasoning. We therefore emphasize the role of legal story schemes (as ...
Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006This paper proposes an argument-based semantics for combined epistemic and practical reasoning, taking seriously the idea that in certain contexts epistemic reasoning is sceptical while practical reasoning is credulous. The new semantics combines ...
Evaluating an Intelligent Tutoring System for Making Legal Arguments with Hypotheticals
Argumentation is a process that occurs often in ill-defined domains and that helps deal with the illdefinedness. Typically a notion of "correctness" for an argument in an ill-defined domain is impossible to define or verify formally because the ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
June 2023
499 pages
ISBN:9798400701979
DOI:10.1145/3594536
- Conference Chair:
- Francisco Andrade,
- Program Chair:
- Matthias Grabmair
Copyright © 2023 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 the author(s) 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
- IAAIL: Intl Asso for Artifical Intel & Law
In-Cooperation
- UMinho: University of Minho
- SIGAI: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence
- AAAI: Am Assoc for Artifical Intelligence
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 07 September 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
ICAIL 2023
Sponsor:
- IAAIL
ICAIL 2023: Nineteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
June 19 - 23, 2023
Braga, Portugal
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 267Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)254
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)37
Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Rotolo ASartor G(2023)Argumentation and explanation in the lawFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence10.3389/frai.2023.11305596Online publication date: 4-Sep-2023
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.
Sign in