Argumentation Schemes for Reasoning about Factors with Dimensions

@inproceedings{Atkinson2013ArgumentationSF,
  title={Argumentation Schemes for Reasoning about Factors with Dimensions},
  author={Katie Atkinson and Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon and H. Prakken and A. Wyner},
  booktitle={JURIX},
  year={2013}
}
In previous work we presented argumentation schemes to capture the CATO and value based theory construction approaches to reasoning with legal cases with factors. We formalised the schemes with ASPIC+, a formal representation of instantiated argumentation. In ASPIC+ the premises of a scheme may either be a factor provided in a knowledge base or established using a further argumentation scheme. Thus far we have taken the factors associated with cases to be given in the knowledge base. While this… Expand
Evaluating an Approach to Reasoning with Cases Using Abstract Dialectical Frameworks
Abstract Dialetical Frameworks (ADFs) are a recent development in computational argumentation which are, it has been suggested, a fruitful way of implementing factor based reasoning with legal cases.Expand
Approaching Factors and Dimensions with Explanation-Based Argumentation
Current research in legal argumentation theory tries to bridge the gap be-tween representations of the arguments brought by parties, and representations of factors and dimensions, as used inExpand
Representation of case law for argumentative reasoning
TLDR
The final result is ANGELIC (ADF for kNowledGe Encapsulation of Legal Information from Cases), a method for producing programs that decide the cases with a high degree of accuracy in multiple domains. Expand
Evaluating the use of abstract dialectical frameworks to represent case law
TLDR
The ease of implementation, the efficacy of the resulting program, ease of refinement of the program, transparency of the reasoning, relation to formal argumentation techniques, and transferability across domains are evaluated. Expand
Implementing Explanation-Based Argumentation using Answer Set Programming
This paper presents an implementation for an explanation-based theory of argumentation. Instead of referring to attack/support relationships between arguments, as in traditional argumentationExpand
Abstract Dialectical Frameworks for Legal Reasoning
TLDR
Dialectical Frameworks for Legal Reasoning provide an excellent framework for representing a leading approach to reasoning with legal cases by replacing Dung’s single acceptance condition with acceptance conditions local to each particular node. Expand
A methodology for designing systems to reason with legal cases using Abstract Dialectical Frameworks
TLDR
This evaluation suggests ways in which factor based systems, which are limited by taking as their starting point the representation of cases as sets of factors and so abstracting away the particular facts, can be extended to address open issues in AI and Law by incorporating the case facts to improve the decision. Expand
A top-level model of case-based argumentation for explanation: Formalisation and experiments
This paper proposes a formal top-level model of explaining the outputs of machine-learning-based decision-making applications. The model draws on AI & law research on argumentation with cases, whichExpand
Argumentation schemes in AI and Law
TLDR
The impact that Walton’s conception of argumentation schemes had on AI and Law research is described and it is shown how Walton's schemes provided a means of addressing all of those issues and so supplied a unifying perspective from which to view argumentation inAI and Law. Expand
Statement Types in Legal Argument
TLDR
An overview of the process of argumentation with legal cases, from evidence to verdict, is presented, showing how the legally accepted facts which form the basis for consideration of the law governing the cases from facts about the world. Expand
...
1
2
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 17 REFERENCES
A formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+
In this article we offer a formal account of reasoning with legal cases in terms of argumentation schemes. These schemes, and undercutting attacks associated with them, are formalized as defeasibleExpand
Towards formalising argumentation about legal cases
TLDR
This paper models the style of reasoning with cases developed by Aleven and Ashley in the CATO project, which describes cases using factors, and extends the account to accommodate the dimensions used in Rissland and Ashley's earlier HYPO project. Expand
Modelling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals, a Thesis Proposal.
TLDR
The program comprises a means of representing and indexing cases in a Case Knowledge Base (CKB), a computational definition of relevance in terms of dimensions which capture the utility of a case for making a particular kind of argument, and a dimension-based method for other cases. Expand
Argument schemes for reasoning with legal cases using values
TLDR
This work presents argument schemes that encapsulate another way of reasoning with cases: using preferences between social values revealed in past decisions to decide cases which have no exact matching precedents when the cases are described in terms of factors. Expand
A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values
TLDR
A formal model of reasoning with cases which captures many of the insights from previous work is put forward, and extensions to the basic model are discussed to accommodate particular features of previous work. Expand
Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game
TLDR
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, to provide formal foundations for certain aspects of computer programs for case-based reasoning in the legal domain. Expand
A general account of argumentation with preferences
TLDR
It is shown that under some assumptions, the resulting framework satisfies key properties and rationality postulates, and it is argued that ASPIC^+@?s modelling of defeasible inference rules further testifies to the generality of the framework. Expand
Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game
TLDR
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. Expand
Back to the Future: Dimensions Revisited
Most recent work on reasoning with cases in law has taken the style of rea- soning used in the CATO system as its model, and uses the notion of factors, as found in that system. Fundamental to CATO,Expand
An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments
  • H. Prakken
  • Mathematics, Computer Science
  • Argument Comput.
  • 2010
An abstract framework for structured arguments is presented, which instantiates Dung's (‘On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, andExpand
...
1
2
...