This game3 was designed to investigate protocols and strategies for resourcebounded disputation. The rules presented here correspond very closely to the problem of controlling search in an actual program. The computer program on which the game is based is LMNOP. It is a LISP system designed to produce arguments and counterarguments from a set of statutory rules and a corpus of precedents, and applied to legal and quasi-legal reasoning. LMNOP was co-designed by a researcher in AI knowledge representation and by a trained computer scientist who was an editor of Washington University Law Review at the time. LMNOP is based on the idea of a non-demonstrative or defeasible rule: i.e., a rule that admits exceptions. It adopts a representational convention that supposes there is an implicit preference of more speciﬁc rules over less speciﬁc rules. In fact, it automatically adjudicates between competing arguments when one argument meets the broader criterion of being more speciﬁc than another. The convention is based on an idea origianlly presented by David Poole , and is embedded in a system of determining which arguments are ultimately warranted, which originally appeared in the literatures of epistemology and ethics, by Pollock . This system evolves from work by the ﬁrst author since 1987; the full statement of the theory is in . Prakken  is one example of the idea’s application to the legal domain. LMNOP also draws heavily on the model of legal reasoning and analogical reasoning put forward by Edwina Rissland and Kevin Ashley [89, 90]. Similarities to their legal casebased reasoning program, HYPO, are no accident; LMNOP seeks to improve on HYPO. A description of LMNOP is forthcoming
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Hard Cases: A Procedural Approach. [REVIEW]Jaap C. Hage, Ronald Leenes & Arno R. Lodder - 1993 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (2):113-167.
Similar books and articles
A Theory of Legal Reasoning and a Logic to Match.Jaap Hage - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):199-273.
Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and its Underlying Logic.Jaap Hage - 1997 - Kluwer Academic Publishers.
A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning.H. Prakken & G. Sartor - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
Evaluating a Legal Argument Program: The BankXX Experiments. [REVIEW]Edwina L. Rissland, David B. Skalak & M. Timur Friedman - 1997 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):1-74.
Quantum Chaos and Semiclassical Mechanics.Robert Batterman - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:50-65.
The Aggressiveness of Playful Arguments.Dale Hample, Bing Han & David Payne - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (4):405-421.
Commodification or Compensation: A Reply to Ketchum.H. M. Malm - 1989 - Hypatia 4 (3):128-135.
BankXX: Supporting Legal Arguments Through Heuristic Retrieval. [REVIEW]Edwina L. Rissland, David B. Skalak & M. Timur Friedman - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (1):1-71.
The Pleadings Games: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice.Thomas F. Gordon - 1995 - Springer.
A Fuzzy Theoretical Approach to Case-Based Representation and Inference in CISG.Mingqiang Xu, Kaoru Hirota & Hajime Yoshino - 1999 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):259-272.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads12 ( #378,229 of 2,171,683 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #326,424 of 2,171,683 )
How can I increase my downloads?