This paper describes one way in which a precise
reason model
of precedent could be developed, based on the general idea that courts are constrained to reach a decision that is consistent with the ...assessment of the balance of reasons made in relevant earlier decisions. The account provided here has the additional advantage of showing how this reason model can be reconciled with the traditional idea that precedential constraint involves rules, as long as these rules are taken to be defeasible. The account presented is firmly based on a body of work that has emerged in AI and Law. This work is discussed, and there is a particular discussion of approaches based on theory construction, and how that work relates to the model described in this paper.
The Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA) conferences bring together researchers and practitioners from all over the world to exchange ideas, experiences and opinions in a friendly and ...stimulating environment. The papers are at once a record of what has been achieved and the first steps towards shaping the future of information systems. DEXA covers a broad field, and all aspects of database, knowledge base and related technologies and their applications are represented. Once again there were a good number of submissions: 241 papers were submitted and of these the programme committee selected 103 to be presented. DEXA’99 took place in Florence and was the tenth conference in the series, following events in Vienna, Berlin, Valencia, Prague, Athens, London, Zurich, Toulouse and Vienna. The decade has seen many developments in the areas covered by DEXA, developments in which DEXA has played its part. I would like to express thanks to all the institutions which have actively supported and made possible this conference, namely: • University of Florence, Italy • IDG CNR, Italy • FAW – University of Linz, Austria • Austrian Computer Society • DEXA Association In addition, we must thank all the people who have contributed their time and effort to make the conference possible. Special thanks go to Maria Schweikert (Technical University of Vienna), M. Neubauer and G. Wagner (FAW, University of Linz). We must also thank all the members of the programme committee, whose careful reviews are important to the quality of the conference.
The design and analysis of norms is a somewhat neglected topic in AI and Law, but this is not so in other areas of Computer Science. In recent years powerful techniques to model and analyse norms ...have been developed in the Multi-Agent Systems community, driven both by the practical need to regulate electronic institutions and open agent systems, and by a theoretical interest in mechanism design and normative systems. Agent based techniques often rely heavily on enforcing norms using the software to prevent violation, but I will also discuss the use of sanctions and rewards, and the conditions under which compliance by autonomous agents (including humans) can be expected or encouraged without sanctions or rewards. In the course of the paper a suggested framework for the exploration of these issues is developed.
Norms provide a valuable mechanism for establishing coherent cooperative behaviour in decentralised systems in which there is no central authority. One of the most influential formulations of norm ...emergence was proposed by Axelrod (Am Political Sci Rev 80(4):1095–1111,
1986
). This paper provides an empirical analysis of aspects of Axelrod’s approach, by exploring some of the key assumptions made in previous evaluations of the model. We explore the dynamics of norm emergence and the occurrence of norm collapse when applying the model over extended durations . It is this phenomenon of norm collapse that can motivate the emergence of a central authority to enforce laws and so preserve the norms, rather than relying on individuals to punish defection. Our findings identify characteristics that significantly influence norm establishment using Axelrod’s formulation, but are likely to be of importance for norm establishment more generally. Moreover, Axelrod’s model suffers from significant limitations in assuming that private strategies of individuals are available to others, and that agents are omniscient in being aware of all norm violations and punishments. Because this is an unreasonable expectation , the approach does not lend itself to modelling real-world systems such as online networks or electronic markets. In response, the paper proposes alternatives to Axelrod’s model, by replacing the evolutionary approach, enabling agents to learn, and by restricting the metapunishment of agents to cases where the original defection is observed, in order to be able to apply the model to real-world domains . This work can also help explain the formation of a “social contract” to legitimate enforcement by a central authority.
Metalevel argumentation Modgil, Sanjay; Bench-Capon, Trevor J. M
Journal of logic and computation,
12/2011, Letnik:
21, Številka:
6
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
The abstract nature of Dung's theory of argumentation accounts for its wide-spread application as a general framework for various species of non-monotonic reasoning, and, more generally, reasoning in ...the presence of conflict. In this article, we formalize reasoning about argumentation within the Dung argumentation paradigm itself. A metalevel Dung argumentation framework is itself instantiated by arguments that make statements about arguments, their interactions, and their evaluation in an object-level argumentation framework.We show how Dung's theory, and object-level extensions of Dung's theory, such as those intended to accommodate preferences, can then be uniformly characterised by metalevel argumentation in a Dung framework. We then discuss how this provides for application of the full range of theoretical and practical developments of Dung's theory, to extensions of Dung's theory, and provides for integration and further augmentation of these extensions.
In many cases of disagreement, particularly in situations involving practical reasoning, it is impossible to demonstrate conclusively that either party is wrong. The role of argument in such cases is ...to persuade rather than to prove, demonstrate or refute. Following Perelman, we argue that persuasion in such cases relies on a recognition that the strength of an argument depends on the social values that it advances, and that whether the attack of one argument on another succeeds depends on the comparative strength of the values advanced by the arguments concerned. To model this we extend the standard notion of Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) to Value-based Argumentation Frameworks (VAFs). After defining VAFs we explore their properties, and show how they can provide a rational basis for the acceptance or rejection of arguments, even where this would appear to be a matter of choice in a standard AF. In particular we show that in a VAF certain arguments can be shown to be acceptable however the relative strengths of the values involved are assessed. This means that disputants can concur on the acceptance of arguments, even when they differ as to which values are more important, and hence that we can identify points for which persuasion should be possible. We illustrate the above using an example moral debate. We then show how factual considerations can be admitted to our framework and discuss the possibility of persuasion in the face of uncertainty and disagreement as to values.
Argumentation schemes in AI and Law Atkinson, Katie; Bench-Capon, Trevor
Argument & computation,
01/2021, Letnik:
12, Številka:
3
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
In this paper we describe the impact that Walton’s conception of argumentation schemes had on AI and Law research. We will discuss developments in argumentation in AI and Law before Walton’s schemes ...became known in that community, and the issues that were current in that work. We will then show how Walton’s schemes provided a means of addressing all of those issues, and so supplied a unifying perspective from which to view argumentation in AI and Law.
Audiences in argumentation frameworks Bench-Capon, Trevor J.M.; Doutre, Sylvie; Dunne, Paul E.
Artificial intelligence,
2007, 2007-01-00, Letnik:
171, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Although reasoning about what is the case has been the historic focus of logic, reasoning about what should be done is an equally important capacity for an intelligent agent. Reasoning about what to ...do in a given situation—termed
practical reasoning in the philosophical literature—has important differences from reasoning about what is the case. The acceptability of an argument for an action turns not only on what is true in the situation, but also on the values and aspirations of the agent to whom the argument is directed. There are three distinctive features of practical reasoning: first, that practical reasoning is situated in a context, directed towards a particular agent at a particular time; second, that since agents differ in their aspirations there is no right answer for all agents, and rational disagreement is always possible; third, that since no agent can specify the relative priority of its aspirations outside of a particular context, such prioritisation must be a product of practical reasoning and cannot be used as an input to it. In this paper we present a framework for practical reasoning which accommodates these three distinctive features. We use the notion of argumentation frameworks to capture the first feature. An extended form of argumentation framework in which values and aspirations can be represented is used to allow divergent opinions for different audiences, and complexity results relating to the extended framework are presented. We address the third feature using a formal description of a dialogue from which preferences over values emerge. Soundness and completeness results for these dialogues are given.
Doug Walton, who died in January 2020, was a prolific author whose work in informal logic and argumentation had a profound influence on Artificial Intelligence, including Artificial Intelligence and ...Law. He was also very interested in interdisciplinary work, and a frequent and generous collaborator. In this paper seven leading researchers in AI and Law, all past programme chairs of the International Conference on AI and Law who have worked with him, describe his influence on their work.
Explanation has been a central feature of AI systems for legal reasoning since their inception. Recently, the topic of explanation of decisions has taken on a new urgency, throughout AI in general, ...with the increasing deployment of AI tools and the need for lay users to be able to place trust in the decisions that the support tools are recommending. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the variety of techniques for explanation that have been developed in AI and Law. We summarise the early contributions and how these have since developed. We describe a number of notable current methods for automated explanation of legal reasoning and we also highlight gaps that must be addressed by future systems to ensure that accurate, trustworthy, unbiased decision support can be provided to legal professionals. We believe that insights from AI and Law, where explanation has long been a concern, may provide useful pointers for future development of explainable AI.
PDF
