Adam Zachary Wyner

Learn More
In this paper, we model a recent legal case as presented in a court of first instance using argument schemes and an argumentation framework, providing a formal analysis of the case and how the outcome was determined. The paper contributes to the body of literature that formally analyses legal cases in terms of arguments and argument schemes. It is novel in(More)
According to argumentation theory, reasoning takes place in different types of dialogue: persuasion dialogue, negotiation, deliberation, information-seeking dialogue, inquiry, and eristic dialogue. These different dialogue types may be nested within one another. Current research in artificial intelligence is building formal models corresponding to each of(More)
In AI approaches to argumentation, different senses of argument are often conflated. We propose a three-level distinction between arguments, cases, and debates. This allows for modularising issues within levels and identifying systematic relations between levels. Arguments, comprised of rules, facts, and a claim, are the basic units; they instantiate(More)
Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) provide a fruitful basis for exploring issues of defeasible reasoning. Their power largely derives from the abstract nature of the arguments within the framework, where arguments are atomic nodes in an undifferentiated relation of attack. This abstraction conceals different conceptions of argument, and concrete instantiations(More)
In this paper we offer a formal account of reasoning with legal cases in terms of argumentation schemes. These schemes, and undercutting attacks associated with them, are formalised as defeasible rules of inference within the ASPIC+ framework. We begin by modelling the style of reasoning with cases developed by Aleven and Ashley in the CATO project, which(More)
Much 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 proposals have suggested regulating attack relations using preferences or values on arguments and which(More)