Case law in extended argumentation frameworks

ABSTRACT

In this paper we discuss how recent developments in argumentation frameworks, most notably Extended Argumentation Frameworks, can inform the representation of a body of case law using abstract argumentation techniques. This builds on previous work which has first used abstract Argumentation Frameworks, and then Value based Argumentation Frameworks for this purpose.

Extended Argumentation Frameworks augment Argumentation Frameworks to not only allow arguments to be attacked, but also attacks to be attacked. This allows argumentation based reasoning about information normally assumed to be metalevel to the object level domain of argumentation, including argumentation over preferences, values and the audience based ranking of values promoted by arguments. The Extended Argumentation Frameworks can then be rewritten as standard Argumentation Frameworks, so that cases, and values and their rankings relevant to the cases, can be reasoned about using standard dialogue games for Argumentation Frameworks. In this way precedents can be represented as collections of arguments and dialogues using these arguments. Now, when confronted with a new case, these dialogues may be used to identify ways of deploying the arguments in the new case so as to reach a favourable position.

REFERENCES

• 1: Vincent A. W. M. M. Aleven, Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 1997
• 2: K. D. Ashley. Modeling Legal Argument. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990.
• 3: Katie Atkinson , Trevor Bench-Capon , Peter McBurney, Arguing about cases as practical reasoning, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 06-11, 2005, Bologna, Italy [doi>10.1145/1165485.1165492]
• 4: T. Bench-Capon. Representation of case law as an argumentation framework. In A. Daskalopoulu T. Bench-Capon and R. Winkels, editors, Proceedings of JURIX 2002, pages 103--112, Amsterdman, The Netherlands, 2002. IOS Press.
• 5: T. Bench-Capon and E. L. Rissland. Back to the future: dimensions revisited. In B. Verheij, A. Lodder, R. Loui, and A. Muntjewerff, editors, Proceedings of JURIX 2001, pages 41--52, Amsterdman, The Netherlands, 2001. IOS Press.
• 6: T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13 3: 429--48, 2003.
• 7: Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, Try to see it my way: modelling persuasion in legal discourse, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.11 n.4, p.271-287, January 2003 [doi>10.1023/B:ARTI.0000045997.45038.8f]
• 8: Trevor Bench-Capon , Katie Atkinson , Alison Chorley, Persuasion and Value in Legal Argument, Journal of Logic and Computation, v.15 n.6, p.1075-1097, December 2005 [doi>10.1093/logcom/exi058]
• 9: Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon , Sylvie Doutre , Paul E. Dunne, Audiences in argumentation frameworks, Artificial Intelligence, v.171 n.1, p.42-71, January, 2007 [doi>10.1016/j.artint.2006.10.013]
• 10: Trevor Bench-Capon , Giovanni Sartor, A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values, Artificial Intelligence, v.150 n.1-2, p.97-143, November 2003 [doi>10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00108-5]
• 11: Donald H. Berman , Carole D. Hafner, Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.50-59, June 15-18, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/158976.158982]
• 12: L. Karl Branting, A reduction-graph model of ratio decidendi, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.40-49, June 15-18, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/158976.158981]
• 13: L. Karl Branting, Reasoning with portions of precedents, Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.145-154, May 1991, Oxford, England [doi>10.1145/112646.112664]
• 14: C. G. Christie. The Notion of an Ideal Audience in Legal Argument. Kluwer Academic Press, 2000.
• 15: Phan Minh Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence, v.77 n.2, p.321-357, Sept. 1995 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X]
• 16: Paul E. Dunne , T J. M. Bench-Capon, Coherence in finite argument systems, Artificial Intelligence, v.141 n.1, p.187-203, October 2002 [doi>10.1016/S0004-3702(02)00261-8]
• 17: Paul E. Dunne , T. J. M. Bench-Capon, Two party immediate response disputes: properties and efficiency, Artificial Intelligence, v.149 n.2, p.221-250, October 2003 [doi>10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00076-6]
• 18: Thomas F. Gordon , Nikos Karacapilidis, The Zeno argumentation framework, Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.10-18, June 30-July 03, 1997, Melbourne, Australia [doi>10.1145/261618.261622]
• 19: Thomas F. Gordon , Douglas Walton, Pierson vs. Post RevisitedA Reconstruction using the Carneades Argumentation Framework, Proceeding of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, p.208-219, May 25, 2006
• 20: Sanjay Modgil, Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks, Artificial Intelligence, v.173 n.9-10, p.901-934, June, 2009 [doi>10.1016/j.artint.2009.02.001]
• 21: Sanjay Mogdil , Trevor Bench-Capon, Integrating Object and Meta-Level Value Based Argumentation, Proceeding of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, p.240-251, June 21, 2008
• 22: C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN, USA, 1969.
• 23: Henry Prakken, Formal systems for persuasion dialogue, The Knowledge Engineering Review, v.21 n.2, p.163-188, June 2006 [doi>10.1017/S0269888906000865]
• 24: Adam Wyner , Trevor Bench-Capon , Katie Atkinson, Arguments, Values and Baseballs: Representation of Popov v. Hayashi, Proceeding of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference, p.151-160, June 15, 2007

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.1 Applications and Expert Systems
          Subjects: Law

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.3 Deduction and Theorem Proving

  K. Computing Milieux
  K.5 LEGAL ASPECTS OF COMPUTING
      K.5.m Miscellaneous

General Terms:
Legal Aspects, Theory