39 found
Order:
  1.  99
    An Abstract Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments.Henry Prakken - 2010 - 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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   72 citations  
  2.  43
    The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof.Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken & Douglas N. Walton - 2007 - 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. (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   63 citations  
  3.  28
    The ASPIC+ Framework for Structured Argumentation: A Tutorial.Sanjay Modgil & Henry Prakken - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (1):31-62.
  4.  98
    Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. [REVIEW]Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton - 2003 - 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 (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   41 citations  
  5.  41
    Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 1997 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7 (1-2):25-75.
    ABSTRACT Inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents a semantics and proof theory of a system for defeasible argumentation. Arguments are expressed in a logic-programming language with both weak and strong negation, conflicts between arguments are decided with the help of priorities on the rules. An important feature of the system is that these priorities are not fixed, but are themselves defeasibly derived as conclusions within the system. Thus debates on the choice between conflicting arguments can also be modelled. The (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   53 citations  
  6.  20
    A Method for Explaining Bayesian Networks for Legal Evidence with Scenarios.Charlotte S. Vlek, Henry Prakken, Silja Renooij & Bart Verheij - 2016 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (3):285-324.
    In a criminal trial, a judge or jury needs to reason about what happened based on the available evidence, often including statistical evidence. While a probabilistic approach is suitable for analysing the statistical evidence, a judge or jury may be more inclined to use a narrative or argumentative approach when considering the case as a whole. In this paper we propose a combination of two approaches, combining Bayesian networks with scenarios. Whereas a Bayesian network is a popular tool for analysing (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  7.  49
    A Hybrid Formal Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence.Floris J. Bex, Peter J. van Koppen, Henry Prakken & Bart Verheij - 2010 - 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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  8. AI & Law, Logic and Argument Schemes.Henry Prakken - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (3):303-320.
    This paper reviews the history of AI & Law research from the perspective of argument schemes. It starts with the observation that logic, although very well applicable to legal reasoning when there is uncertainty, vagueness and disagreement, is too abstract to give a fully satisfactory classification of legal argument types. It therefore needs to be supplemented with an argument-scheme approach, which classifies arguments not according to their logical form but according to their content, in particular, according to the roles that (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  9.  12
    Building Bayesian Networks for Legal Evidence with Narratives: A Case Study Evaluation.Charlotte S. Vlek, Henry Prakken, Silja Renooij & Bart Verheij - 2014 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 22 (4):375-421.
    In a criminal trial, evidence is used to draw conclusions about what happened concerning a supposed crime. Traditionally, the three main approaches to modeling reasoning with evidence are argumentative, narrative and probabilistic approaches. Integrating these three approaches could arguably enhance the communication between an expert and a judge or jury. In previous work, techniques were proposed to represent narratives in a Bayesian network and to use narratives as a basis for systematizing the construction of a Bayesian network for a legal (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  10. Using Argument Schemes for Hypothetical Reasoning in Law.Trevor Bench-Capon & Henry Prakken - 2010 - 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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  11.  64
    Contrary-to-Duty Obligations.Henry Prakken & Marek Sergot - 1996 - 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 (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   36 citations  
  12.  78
    A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW]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 - 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  13.  56
    Introduction to Structured Argumentation.Philippe Besnard, Alejandro Garcia, Anthony Hunter, Sanjay Modgil, Henry Prakken, Guillermo Simari & Francesca Toni - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (1):1-4.
    In abstract argumentation, each argument is regarded as atomic. There is no internal structure to an argument. Also, there is no specification of what is an argument or an attack. They are assumed to be given. This abstract perspective provides many advantages for studying the nature of argumentation, but it does not cover all our needs for understanding argumentation or for building tools for supporting or undertaking argumentation. If we want a more detailed formalization of arguments than is available with (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  14.  36
    An Exercise in Formalising Teleological Case-Based Reasoning.Henry Prakken - 2002 - 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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  15. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law.Henry Prakken - 2000 - Studia Logica 64 (1):143-146.
  16.  40
    Formalising Ordinary Legal Disputes: A Case Study. [REVIEW]Henry Prakken - 2008 - 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 (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  17.  33
    Introduction to the Special Issue on Artificial Intelligence for Justice.Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Tom van Engers & Bart Verheij - 2017 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 25 (1):1-3.
  18.  20
    Relating Carneades with Abstract Argumentation Via the ASPIC+ Framework for Structured Argumentation.Bas van Gijzel & Henry Prakken - 2012 - 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  19. A Logical Analysis of Burdens of Proof.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 2008 - In Hendrik Kaptein (ed.), Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic. Ashgate.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  20.  8
    An Argumentation‐Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case.Henry Prakken - forthcoming - Topics in Cognitive Science.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  21.  34
    A Formal Model of Adjudication Dialogues.Henry Prakken - 2008 - 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 (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  22.  53
    The Three Faces of Defeasibility in the Law.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 2004 - Ratio Juris 17 (1):118-139.
  23. Relating Protocols for Dynamic Dispute with Logics for Defeasible Argumentation.Henry Prakken - 2001 - 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 protocols that are (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  24. Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure?Henry Prakken - 2001 - Fundamenta Informaticae 48 (2-3):253-271.
  25.  37
    On the Problem of Making Autonomous Vehicles Conform to Traffic Law.Henry Prakken - 2017 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 25 (3):341-363.
    Autonomous vehicles are one of the most spectacular recent developments of Artificial Intelligence. Among the problems that still need to be solved before they can fully autonomously participate in traffic is the one of making their behaviour conform to the traffic laws. This paper discusses this problem by way of a case study of Dutch traffic law. First it is discussed to what extent Dutch traffic law exhibits features that are traditionally said to pose challenges for AI & Law models, (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  26.  57
    Argumentation Without Arguments.Henry Prakken - 2011 - 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 (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  27.  66
    Reconstructing Popov V. Hayashi in a Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments and Dungean Semantics.Henry Prakken - 2012 - 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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  28.  18
    Relating Protocols For Dynamic Dispute With Logics For Defeasible Argumentation.Henry Prakken - 2001 - Synthese 127 (1):187-219.
    This article investigates to what extent protocols for dynamic disputes, i.e., disputes in which the information base can vary at different stages, can be justified in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. First a general framework is formulated for dialectical proof theories for such logics. Then this framework is adapted to serve as a framework for protocols for dynamic disputes, after which soundness and fairness properties are formulated for such protocols relative to dialectical proof theories. It then turns out that (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  29.  35
    Two Approaches to the Formalisation of Defeasible Deontic Reasoning.Henry Prakken - 1996 - 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  30.  45
    An Appreciation of John Pollock's Work on the Computational Study of Argument.Henry Prakken & John Horty - 2012 - 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  31. Book Review Editor. [REVIEW]Henry Prakken - 2002 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 10:219-224.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  32.  9
    A new use case for argumentation support tools: supporting discussions of Bayesian analyses of complex criminal cases.Henry Prakken - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 28 (1):27-49.
    In this paper a new use case for legal argumentation support tools is considered: supporting discussions about analyses of complex criminal cases with the help of Bayesian probability theory. By way of a case study, two actual discussions between experts in court cases are analysed on their argumentation structure. In this study the usefulness of several recognised argument schemes is confirmed, a new argument scheme for arguments from statistics are proposed, and an analysis is given of debates between experts about (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33.  6
    Norms, Logics and Information Systems: New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science.Paul McNamara & Henry Prakken (eds.) - 1998 - IOS Press.
    This is a collection of a select subset of revised versions of conference papers presented at DEON'98, held at the University of Bologna. The collection contains an introduction by the editors, and lead article, "Deontic Logic - as I See It" by G.H. von Wright, followed by 19 articles grouped under six headings, "Norms and Truth", "Agency and Time", "Analysis of Normative Conflicts", "Defeasibility and Norm Conflicts", Computer System Applications", and "Combinations of Logics". The collection contains a number of influential (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  34.  21
    Introduction: Dialectical Legal Argument: Formal and Informal Models. [REVIEW]Eveline Feteris & Henry Prakken - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):107-113.
  35.  24
    Towards a Multi-Agent System for Regulated Information Exchange in Crime Investigations.Pieter Dijkstra, Floris Bex, Henry Prakken & Kees de Vey Mestdagh - 2005 - 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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36.  25
    Towards a Multi-Agent System for Regulated Information Exchange in Crime Investigations.Pieter Dijkstra, Floris Bex, Henry Prakken & Kees Vey Mestdagdeh - 2005 - 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 (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37.  24
    Editors' Introduction.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):157-161.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38.  1
    An Analysis of Critical-Link Semantics with Variable Degrees of Justification.Bin Wei & Henry Prakken - 2016 - Argument and Computation 7 (1):35-53.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39. Chris and Douglas Walton,'Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalizations'.Bex Floris & Henry Prakken - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11:125-165.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark