Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Statutory Interpretation as Argumentation.Douglas Walton, Giovanni Sartor & Fabrizio Macagno - 2011 - In Colin Aitken, Amalia Amaya, Kevin D. Ashley, Carla Bagnoli, Giorgio Bongiovanni, Bartosz Brożek, Cristiano Castelfranchi, Samuele Chilovi, Marcello Di Bello, Jaap Hage, Kenneth Einar Himma, Lewis A. Kornhauser, Emiliano Lorini, Fabrizio Macagno, Andrei Marmor, J. J. Moreso, Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco, Antonino Rotolo, Giovanni Sartor, Burkhard Schafer, Chiara Valentini, Bart Verheij, Douglas Walton & Wojciech Załuski (eds.), Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer Verlag. pp. 519-560.
    This chapter proposes a dialectical approach to legal interpretation, consisting of three dimensions: a formalization of the canons of interpretation in terms of argumentation schemes; a dialectical classification of interpretive schemes; and a logical and computational model for comparing the arguments pro and contra an interpretation. The traditional interpretive maxims or canons used in both common and civil law are translated into defeasible patterns of arguments, which can be evaluated through sets of corresponding critical questions. These interpretive argumentation schemes are (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • An improved factor based approach to precedential constraint.Adam Rigoni - 2015 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 23 (2):133-160.
    In this article I argue for rule-based, non-monotonic theories of common law judicial reasoning and improve upon one such theory offered by Horty and Bench-Capon. The improvements reveal some of the interconnections between formal theories of judicial reasoning and traditional issues within jurisprudence regarding the notions of the ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. Though I do not purport to resolve the long-standing jurisprudential issues here, it is beneficial for theorists both of legal philosophy and formalizing legal reasoning to see where (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Padua: A protocol for argumentation dialogue using association rules. [REVIEW]Maya Wardeh, Trevor Bench-Capon & Frans Coenen - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (3):183-215.
    We describe PADUA, a protocol designed to support two agents debating a classification by offering arguments based on association rules mined from individual datasets. We motivate the style of argumentation supported by PADUA, and describe the protocol. We discuss the strategies and tactics that can be employed by agents participating in a PADUA dialogue. PADUA is applied to a typical problem in the classification of routine claims for a hypothetical welfare benefit. We particularly address the problems that arise from the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Formalizing value-guided argumentation for ethical systems design.Bart Verheij - 2016 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (4):387-407.
    The persuasiveness of an argument depends on the values promoted and demoted by the position defended. This idea, inspired by Perelman’s work on argumentation, has become a prominent theme in artificial intelligence research on argumentation since the work by Hafner and Berman on teleological reasoning in the law, and was further developed by Bench-Capon in his value-based argumentation frameworks. One theme in the study of value-guided argumentation is the comparison of values. Formal models involving value comparison typically use either qualitative (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • The Qualification Problem: A solution to the problem of anomalous models.Michael Thielscher - 2001 - Artificial Intelligence 131 (1-2):1-37.
  • Argument based machine learning applied to law.Martin Možina, Jure Žabkar, Trevor Bench-Capon & Ivan Bratko - 2005 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (1):53-73.
    In this paper we discuss the application of a new machine learning approach – Argument Based Machine Learning – to the legal domain. An experiment using a dataset which has also been used in previous experiments with other learning techniques is described, and comparison with previous experiments made. We also tested this method for its robustness to noise in learning data. Argumentation based machine learning is particularly suited to the legal domain as it makes use of the justifications of decisions (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games.Phan Minh Dung - 1995 - Artificial Intelligence 77 (2):321-357.
  • Agatha: Using heuristic search to automate the construction of case law theories. [REVIEW]Alison Chorley & Trevor Bench-Capon - 2005 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (1):9-51.
    In this paper we describe AGATHA, a program designed to automate the process of theory construction in case based domains. Given a seed case and a number of precedent cases, the program uses a set of argument moves to generate a search space for a dialogue between the parties to the dispute. Each move is associated with a set of theory constructors, and thus each point in the space can be associated with a theory intended to explain the seed case (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Using background knowledge in case-based legal reasoning: A computational model and an intelligent learning environment.Vincent Aleven - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence 150 (1-2):183-237.