31 found
Sort by:
  1. Philippe Besnard, Alejandro Garcia, Anthony Hunter, Sanjay Modgil, Henry Prakken, Guillermo Simari & Francesca Toni (2014). Introduction to Structured Argumentation. Argument and Computation 5 (1):1-4.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Sanjay Modgil & Henry Prakken (2014). The ASPIC+ Framework for Structured Argumentation: A Tutorial. Argument and Computation 5 (1):31-62.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner (2012). A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
    We provide a retrospective of 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law, which was first held in 1987. Fifty papers have been selected from the thirteen conferences and each of them is described in a short subsection individually written by one of the 24 authors. These subsections attempt to place the paper discussed in the context of the development of AI and Law, while often offering some personal reactions and reflections. As a whole, the subsections build into (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Henry Prakken (2012). Reconstructing Popov V. Hayashi in a Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments and Dungean Semantics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):57-82.
    In this article the argumentation structure of the court’s decision in the Popov v. Hayashi case is formalised in Prakken’s (Argument Comput 1:93–124; 2010) abstract framework for argument-based inference with structured arguments. In this framework, arguments are inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules, strict and defeasible rules. Arguments can be attacked in three ways: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such conflicts, preferences may be used, which leads to three corresponding (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Henry Prakken & John Horty (2012). An Appreciation of John Pollock's Work on the Computational Study of Argument. Argument and Computation 3 (1):1 - 19.
    John Pollock (1940?2009) was an influential American philosopher who made important contributions to various fields, including epistemology and cognitive science. In the last 25 years of his life, he also contributed to the computational study of defeasible reasoning and practical cognition in artificial intelligence. He developed one of the first formal systems for argumentation-based inference and he put many issues on the research agenda that are still relevant for the argumentation community today. This paper presents an appreciation of Pollock's work (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Bas van Gijzel & Henry Prakken (2012). Relating Carneades with Abstract Argumentation Via the ASPIC+ Framework for Structured Argumentation. Argument and Computation 3 (1):21 - 47.
    Carneades is a recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation with varying proof standards, inspired by legal reasoning, but more generally applicable. Its distinctive feature is that each statement can be given its own proof standard, which is claimed to allow a more natural account of reasoning under burden of proof than existing formalisms for structured argumentation, in which proof standards are defined globally. In this article, the two formalisms are formally related by translating Carneades into the ASPIC+ framework for structured (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Henry Prakken (2011). An Abstract Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments. Argument and Computation 1 (2):93-124.
    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, and n- Person Games', Artificial Intelligence , 77, 321-357) abstract argumentation frameworks. Arguments are defined as inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules: strict and defeasible rules. This naturally leads to three ways of attacking an argument: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such attacks, preferences may (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Henry Prakken (2011). Argumentation Without Arguments. Argumentation 25 (2):171-184.
    A well-known ambiguity in the term ‘argument’ is that of argument as an inferential structure and argument as a kind of dialogue. In the first sense, an argument is a structure with a conclusion supported by one or more grounds, which may or may not be supported by further grounds. Rules for the construction and criteria for the quality of arguments in this sense are a matter of logic. In the second sense, arguments have been studied as a form of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Trevor Bench-Capon & Henry Prakken (2010). Using Argument Schemes for Hypothetical Reasoning in Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):153-174.
    This paper studies the use of hypothetical and value-based reasoning in US Supreme-Court cases concerning the United States Fourth Amendment. Drawing upon formal AI & Law models of legal argument a semi-formal reconstruction is given of parts of the Carney case, which has been studied previously in AI & law research on case-based reasoning. As part of the reconstruction, a semi-formal proposal is made for extending the formal AI & Law models with forms of metalevel reasoning in several argument schemes. (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Floris J. Bex, Peter J. van Koppen, Henry Prakken & Bart Verheij (2010). A Hybrid Formal Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):123-152.
    This paper presents a theory of reasoning with evidence in order to determine the facts in a criminal case. The focus is on the process of proof, in which the facts of the case are determined, rather than on related legal issues, such as the admissibility of evidence. In the literature, two approaches to reasoning with evidence can be distinguished, one argument-based and one story-based. In an argument-based approach to reasoning with evidence, the reasons for and against the occurrence of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Henry Prakken (2010). Using Argument Schemes for Hypothetical Reasoning in Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):153-174.
    This paper studies the use of hypothetical and value-based reasoning in US Supreme-Court cases concerning the United States Fourth Amendment. Drawing upon formal AI & Law models of legal argument a semi-formal reconstruction is given of parts of the Carney case, which has been studied previously in AI & law research on case-based reasoning. As part of the reconstruction, a semi-formal proposal is made for extending the formal AI & Law models with forms of metalevel reasoning in several argument schemes. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Henry Prakken (2008). A Formal Model of Adjudication Dialogues. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (3):305-328.
    This article presents a formal dialogue game for adjudication dialogues. Existing AI & law models of legal dialogues and argumentation-theoretic models of persuasion are extended with a neutral third party, to give a more realistic account of the adjudicator’s role in legal procedures. The main feature of the model is a division into an argumentation phase, where the adversaries plea their case and the adjudicator has a largely mediating role, and a decision phase, where the adjudicator decides the dispute on (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Henry Prakken (2008). Formalising Ordinary Legal Disputes: A Case Study. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (4):333-359.
    This paper presents a formal reconstruction of a Dutch civil legal case in Prakken’s formal model of adjudication dialogues. The object of formalisation is the argumentative speech acts exchanged during the dispute by the adversaries and the judge. The goal of this formalisation is twofold: to test whether AI & law models of legal dialogues in general, and Prakken’s model in particular, are suitable for modelling particular legal procedures; and to learn about the process of formalising an actual legal dispute.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor (2008). A Logical Analysis of Burdens of Proof. In Hendrik Kaptein (ed.), Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic. Ashgate.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken & Douglas N. Walton (2007). The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof. Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):875-896.
    We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the procedural and dialogical aspects of argumentation. The model applies proof standards to determine the acceptability of statements on an issue-by-issue basis. The model uses different types of premises (ordinary premises, assumptions and exceptions) and information about the dialectical status of statements (stated, questioned, accepted or rejected) to allow the burden of proof to be allocated to the proponent or the respondent, as appropriate, for each premise separately. (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Pieter Dijkstra, Floris Bex, Henry Prakken & Kees de Vey Mestdagh (2005). Towards a Multi-Agent System for Regulated Information Exchange in Crime Investigations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (1):133-151.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Pieter Dijkstra, Floris Bex, Henry Prakken & Kees Vey Mestdagdeh (2005). Towards a Multi-Agent System for Regulated Information Exchange in Crime Investigations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (1):133-151.
    This paper outlines a multi-agent architecture for regulated information exchange of crime investigation data between police forces. Interactions between police officers about information exchange are analysed as negotiation dialogues with embedded persuasion dialogues. An architecture is then proposed consisting of two agents, a requesting agent and a responding agent, and a communication language and protocol with which these agents can interact to promote optimal information exchange while respecting the law. Finally, dialogue policies are defined for the individual agents, specifying their (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Henry Prakken (2005). AI & Law, Logic and Argument Schemes. Argumentation 19 (3):303-320.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor (2004). The Three Faces of Defeasibility in the Law. Ratio Juris 17 (1):118-139.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
    This paper studies the modelling of legal reasoning about evidence within general theories of defeasible reasoning and argumentation. In particular, Wigmore's method for charting evidence and its use by modern legal evidence scholars is studied in order to give a formal underpinning in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Two notions turn out to be crucial, viz. argumentation schemes and empirical generalisations.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Bex Floris & Henry Prakken (2003). Chris and Douglas Walton,'Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalizations'. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11:125-165.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Henry Prakken (2002). An Exercise in Formalising Teleological Case-Based Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (1-3):113-133.
    This paper takes up Berman and Hafner's (1993) challenge to model legal case-based reasoning not just in terms of factual similarities and differences but also in terms of the values that are at stake. The formal framework of Prakken and Sartor (1998) is applied to examples of case-based reasoning involving values, and a method for formalising such examples is proposed. The method makes it possible to express that a case should be decided in a certain way because that advances certain (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Henry Prakken (2002). Book Review Editor. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 10:219-224.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Henry Prakken (2001). Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae 48 (2-3):253-271.
  25. Henry Prakken (2001). Relating Protocols for Dynamic Dispute with Logics for Defeasible Argumentation. Synthese 127 (1-2):187 - 219.
    This article investigates to what extent protocols for dynamicdisputes, i.e., disputes in which the information base can vary at differentstages, can be justified in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. Firsta general framework is formulated for dialectical proof theories for suchlogics. Then this framework is adapted to serve as a framework for protocols fordynamic disputes, after which soundness and fairness properties are formulated for such protocols relative to dialectical proof theories. It then turns out that certaintypes of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Eveline Feteris & Henry Prakken (2000). Introduction: Dialectical Legal Argument: Formal and Informal Models. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):107-113.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Paul McNamara & Henry Prakken (eds.) (1998). Norms, Logics and Information Systems: New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science. IOS Press.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor (1997). Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7 (1-2):25-75.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Henry Prakken (1996). Two Approaches to the Formalisation of Defeasible Deontic Reasoning. Studia Logica 57 (1):73 - 90.
    This paper compares two ways of formalising defeasible deontic reasoning, both based on the view that the issues of conflicting obligations and moral dilemmas should be dealt with from the perspective of nonmonotonic reasoning. The first way is developing a special nonmonotonic logic for deontic statements. This method turns out to have some limitations, for which reason another approach is recommended, viz. combining an already existing nonmonotonic logic with a deontic logic. As an example of this method the language of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor (1996). Editors' Introduction. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):157-161.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Henry Prakken & Marek Sergot (1996). Contrary-to-Duty Obligations. Studia Logica 57 (1):91 - 115.
    We investigate under what conditions contrary-to-duty (CTD) structures lacking temporal and action elements can be given a coherent reading. We argue, contrary to some recent proposals, that CTD is not an instance of defeasible reasoning, and that methods of nonmonotonic logics are inadequate since they are unable to distinguish between defeasibility and violation of primary obligations. We propose a semantic framework based on the idea that primary and CTD obligations are obligations of different kinds: a CTD obligation pertains to, or (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation