Learn More
The outcome of a legal dispute, namely, the decision of its adjudicator, is uncertain, and both parties develop their strategies on the basis of their appreciation of the probability that the adjudicator will accept their arguments or the arguments of their adversary. Costs and gains have to be balanced in light of this uncertainty in order to identify the(More)
We provide a conceptual analysis of several kinds of deadlines, represented in Temporal Modal Defeasible Logic. The paper presents a typology of deadlines, based on the following parameters: deontic operator, maintenance or achievement, presence or absence of sanctions, and persistence after the deadline. The deadline types are illustrated by a set of(More)
This paper proposes some variants of Temporal Defeasible Logic (TDL) to reason about normative modifications. These variants make it possible to differentiate cases in which, for example, modifications at some time change legal rules but their conclusions persist afterwards from cases where also their conclusions are blocked.
Argumentation is modelled as a game where the payoffs are measured in terms of the probability that the claimed conclusion is, or is not, defeasibly provable, given a history of arguments that have actually been exchanged, and given the probability of the factual premises. The probability of a conclusion is calculated using a standard variant of Defeasible(More)
This paper provides a game-theoretical investigation on how to determine optimal strategies in dialogue games for argumentation. To make our ideas as widely applicable as possible, we adopt an abstract dialectical setting and model dialogues as extensive games with perfect information where optimal strategies are determined by preferences over outcomes of(More)
Temporal Defeasible Logic extends Defeasible Logic (DL) [1] to deal with temporal aspects. This extension proved useful in modelling temporalised normative positions [3] and retroactive rules, which permit to obtain conclusions holding at a time instant that precedes the time of application of the same rules [4]. Time is added in two ways. First, a(More)
In agent communication languages, the inferences that can be made on the basis of a communicative action are inherently conditional, and non-monotonic. For example , a proposal only leads to a commitment, on the condition that it is accepted. And in a persuasion dialogue, assertions may later be retracted. In this paper we therefore present a defeasible(More)