Results 1 - 10
of
143
Abstract Argumentation
- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LAW
, 1996
"... In this paper we explore the thesis that the role of argumentation in practical reasoning in general and legal reasoning in particular is to justify the use of defeasible rules to derive a conclusion in preference to the use of other defeasible rules to derive a conflicting conclusion. The defeasib ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 111 (30 self)
- Add to MetaCart
In this paper we explore the thesis that the role of argumentation in practical reasoning in general and legal reasoning in particular is to justify the use of defeasible rules to derive a conclusion in preference to the use of other defeasible rules to derive a conflicting conclusion. The defeasibility of rules is expressed by means of non-provability claims as additional conditions of the rules. We outline an abstract approach to defeasible reasoning and argumentation which includes many existing formalisms, including default logic, extended logic programming, non-monotonic modal logic and auto-epistemic logic, as special cases. We show, in particular, that the “admissibility ” semantics for all these formalisms has a natural argumentationtheoretic interpretation and proof procedure, which seem to correspond well with informal argumentation. In the admissibility semantics there is only one way for one argument to attack another, namely by undermining one of its non-provability claims. In this paper, we show how other kinds of attack between arguments, specifically how rebuttal and priority attacks, can be reduced to the undermining of non-provability claims.
REPRESENTING BUSINESS CONTRACTS IN RuleML
, 2005
"... This paper presents an approach for the specification and implementation of translating contracts from a human-oriented form into an executable representation for monitoring. This will be done in the setting of RuleML. The task of monitoring contract execution and performance requires a logical acco ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 103 (49 self)
- Add to MetaCart
This paper presents an approach for the specification and implementation of translating contracts from a human-oriented form into an executable representation for monitoring. This will be done in the setting of RuleML. The task of monitoring contract execution and performance requires a logical account of deontic and defeasible aspects of legal language; currently such aspects are not covered by RuleML; accordingly we show how to extend it to cover such notions. From its logical form, the contract will be thus transformed into a machine readable rule notation and eventually implemented as executable semantics via any mark-up languages depending on the client’s preference, for contract monitoring purposes.
Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game
- Artificial Intelligence and Law
, 1998
"... . This paper analyses legal reasoning with precedents in the setting of a formally defined dialogue game. After giving a legal-theoretical account of judicial reasoning with precedents, a formal method is proposed for representing precedents and it is discussed how such representations can be used i ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 82 (10 self)
- Add to MetaCart
. This paper analyses legal reasoning with precedents in the setting of a formally defined dialogue game. After giving a legal-theoretical account of judicial reasoning with precedents, a formal method is proposed for representing precedents and it is discussed how such representations can be used in a formally defined dialectical protocol for dispute. The basic ideas are to represent cases as argument structures (including pro and con arguments, and the arguments for adjudicating their conflicts) and to define certain case-based reasoning moves as strategies for introducing information into a dispute. In particular, analogizing and distinguishing are conceived as elementary theory construction moves, which produce new information on the basis of an existing stock of cases. The approach also offers the possibility of using portions of precedents and of expressing criteria for determining the outcome of precedent-based disputes. The analysis, which is partly based on argument-based sema...
Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and . . .
, 2003
"... ..."
Temporalised normative positions in defeasible logic
- Procedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
, 2005
"... ..."
(Show Context)
Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic
- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LAW
, 2003
"... This paper describes an approach to legal logic based on the formal analysis of argumentation schemes. Argumentation schemes- a notion borrowed from the field of argumentation theory- are a kind of generalized rules of inference, in the sense that they express that given certain premises a particula ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 59 (14 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This paper describes an approach to legal logic based on the formal analysis of argumentation schemes. Argumentation schemes- a notion borrowed from the field of argumentation theory- are a kind of generalized rules of inference, in the sense that they express that given certain premises a particular conclusion can be drawn. However, argumentation schemes need not concern strict, abstract, necessarily valid patterns of reasoning, but can be defeasible, concrete and contingently valid, i.e. valid in certain contexts or under certain circumstances. A method is presented to analyze argumentation schemes and it is shown how argumentation schemes can be embedded in a formal model of dialectical argumentation. 1
A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning
- in Proceedings of the tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
, 2005
"... This paper presents a logical formalisation of accrual of arguments as a form of inference. The formalisation is given within the logical framework of Dung as instantiated by Pollock, and is shown to satisfy three principles that any treatment of accrual should satisfy. The formalisation of accrual ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 57 (8 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This paper presents a logical formalisation of accrual of arguments as a form of inference. The formalisation is given within the logical framework of Dung as instantiated by Pollock, and is shown to satisfy three principles that any treatment of accrual should satisfy. The formalisation of accrual as inference is contrasted to knowledge-representation treatments of accrual. Also, the formalisation is applied to some concepts from the theory of evidential legal reasoning. 1.
Dialectic Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks
- In ICAIL
, 1999
"... We provide a formalism for the study of dialogues, where a dialogue is a two-person game, initiated by the proponent who defends a proposed thesis. We examine several different winning criteria and several different dialogue types, where a dialogue type is determined by a set of positions, an attack ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 52 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We provide a formalism for the study of dialogues, where a dialogue is a two-person game, initiated by the proponent who defends a proposed thesis. We examine several different winning criteria and several different dialogue types, where a dialogue type is determined by a set of positions, an attack relation between positions and a legal-move function. We examine two proof theories, where a proof theory is determined by a dialogue type and a winning criterion. For each of the proof theories we supply a corresponding declarative semantics. 1 Introduction Artificial intelligence has long dealt with the challenge of modeling argumentation ([Tou84], [Fel84], [Vre97]). Abstract argumentation and formal dialectics have been developed in noteworthy works such as [Dun95], [Vre93], [KT96], [PS96], [PS97], [Ver96] and [Lou98a]. These fields are useful for the purpose of decision-making and discussion among intelligent agents, such as in [Ree97] and [PJ98]. In addition, they are important in the...
Computational Logic and Human Thinking: How to be Artificially Intelligent
, 2011
"... The mere possibility of Artificial Intelligence (AI) – of machines that can think and act as intelligently as humans – can generate strong emotions. While some enthusiasts are excited by the thought that one day machines may become more intelligent than people, many of its critics view such a prosp ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 39 (10 self)
- Add to MetaCart
The mere possibility of Artificial Intelligence (AI) – of machines that can think and act as intelligently as humans – can generate strong emotions. While some enthusiasts are excited by the thought that one day machines may become more intelligent than people, many of its critics view such a prospect with horror. Partly because these controversies attract so much attention, one of the most important accomplishments of AI has gone largely unnoticed: the fact that many of its advances can also be used directly by people, to improve their own human intelligence. Chief among these advances is Computational Logic. Computational Logic builds upon traditional logic, which was originally developed to help people think more effectively. It employs the techniques of symbolic logic, which has been used to build the foundations of mathematics and computing. However, compared with traditional logic, Computational Logic is much more powerful; and compared with symbolic logic, it is much simpler and more practical. Although the applications of Computational Logic in AI require the use of mathematical notation, its human applications do not. As a consequence, I have written the main part of this book informally, to reach as wide an audience as possible. Because human thinking is also the subject of study in many other fields, I have drawn upon related studies in Cognitive Psychology, Linguistics, Philosophy, Law, Management Science and English
