Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

ArgPROLEG: A Normative Framework for the JUF Theory

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (JSAI-isAI 2013)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 8417))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 873 Accesses

Abstract

In this paper we propose ArgPROLEG, a normative framework for legal reasoning based on PROLEG, an implementation of the Japanese “theory of presupposed ultimate facts”(JUF). This theory was mainly developed with the purpose of modelling the process of decision making by judges in the court. Not having complete and accurate information about each case, makes uncertainty an unavoidable part of decision making for judges. In the JUF theory each party that puts forward a claim, due to associated burden of proof to each claim, it needs to prove it as well. Not being able to provide such a proof for a claim, enables the judges to discard that claim although they might not be certain about the truth. The framework that we offer benefits from the use of argumentation theory as well as normative framework in multi-agent systems, to bring the reasoning closer to the user. The nature of argumentation in dealing with incomplete information on the one hand and being presentable in the form of dialogues on the other hand, has furthered the emergence and popularity of argumentation in modelling legal disputes. In addition, the use of multiple agents allows more flexibility for the behaviour of the parties involved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    DAF can also be referred to as an Abstract AF because it abstracts away the internal structure of arguments and instead, it merely focuses on attack relations among arguments.

  2. 2.

    We assume that a party can use all the exceptions available exhaustively, one-by-one, to make a successful counter attack. Thus, if the party cannot provide the required support for the first exception, it has the opportunity to try the second exception and so on.

References

  1. Balke, T., De Vos, M., Padget, J., Traskas, D.: On-line reasoning for institutionally-situated BDI agents. In: Yolum, P., Tumer, K., Stone, P., Sonenberg, L. (eds.) 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2011), pp. 1109–1110. IF0AAMAS, May 2011

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argumentation in legal reasoning. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 363–382. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Bordini, R.H., Wooldridge, M., Hübner, J.F.: Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak using Jason (Wiley Series in Agent Technology). John Wiley & Sons, New York (2007)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Clark, K.V.: Negation as failure. In: Minker, J. (ed.) Logic and Data Bases, vol. 1, pp. 293–322. Plenum Press, New York (1978)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: 17th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), pp. 568–572. IEEE Computer Society (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M.: A unified framework for representation and development of dialectical proof procedures in argumentation. In: Boutilier, C. (ed.) Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 746–751 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Eshghi, K., Kowalski, R.A.: Abduction compared with negation by failure. In: ICLP, pp. 234–254 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fan, X., Toni, F., Hussain, A.: Two-agent conflict resolution with assumption-based argumentation. In: Computational Models of ArgumentComputational Models of Argument (COMMA), pp. 231–242 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gaggl, S.A.: Solving argumentation frameworks using answer set programming. Master’s thesis, Technische Universitt, Wien (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 875–896 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Gordon, T.F., Walton, D.: Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL), pp. 137–146. ACM (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kakas, A.C.: Default reasoning via negation as failure. In: Lakemeyer, G., Nebel, B. (eds.) ECAI-WS 1992. LNCS, vol. 810, pp. 160–178. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Prakken, H.: Formalising ordinary legal disputes: a case study. Artif. Intell. Law 16(4), 333–359 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion. In: Proceedings of the 11th international Conference on Artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL ’07, pp. 97–106. ACM. New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: More on presumptions and burdens of proof. In: Francesconi, E., Sartor, G., Tiscornia, D. (eds.) JURIX, volume 189 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 176–185. IOS Press (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: BDI agents: from theory to practice. In: Proceeding of the first International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), pp. 312–319 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Satoh, K., Asai, K., Kogawa, T., Kubota, M., Nakamura, M., Nishigai, Y., Shirakawa, K., Takano, C.: PROLEG: an implementation of the presupposed ultimate fact theory of Japanese civil code by PROLOG technology. In: Bekki, D. (ed.) JSAI-isAI 2010. LNCS, vol. 6797, pp. 153–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Satoh, K., Kogawa, T., Okada, N., Omori, K., Omura, S., Tsuchiya, K.: On generality of PROLEG knowledgerepresentation. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Juris-informatics (JURISIN 2012), Miyazaki, Japan, pp. 115–128 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Satoh, K., Kubota, M., Nishigai, Y., Takano, C.: Translating the Japanese presupposed ultimate fact theory into logic programming. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2009, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 162–171. IOS Press (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Satoh, K.: Logic programming and burden of proof in legal reasoning. New Gener. Comput. 30(4), 297–326 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sergot, M.J., Sadri, F., Kowalski, R.A., Kriwaczek, F., Hammond, P., Cory, H.T.: The British nationality act as a logic program. Commun. ACM 29(5), 370–386 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Thang, P.M., Dung, P.M., Hung, N.D.: Towards a common framework for dialectical proof procedures in abstract argumentation. J. Logic Comput. 19(6), 1071–1109 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. López y López, F., Luck, M.: A model of normative multi-agent systems and dynamic relationships. In: Lindemann, G., Moldt, D., Paolucci, M. (eds.) RASTA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2934, pp. 259–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. López y López, F., Luck, M., d’Inverno, M.: A normative framework for agent-based systems. Comput. Math. Organiz. Theor. 12, 227–250 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Yoshino, H.: On the logical foundations of compound predicate formulae for legal knowledge representation. Artif. Intell. Law 5(1–2), 77–96 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Bath, Bath, UK

    Zohreh Shams & Marina De Vos

  2. Principles of Informatics Research Division, National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan

    Ken Satoh

Authors
  1. Zohreh Shams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marina De Vos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ken Satoh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zohreh Shams .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Seikei University, Musashino-shi, Tokyo, Japan

    Yukiko Nakano

  2. National Institute of Informatics Research Division, Tokyo, Japan

    Ken Satoh

  3. Ochanomizu University, Tokyo, Japan

    Daisuke Bekki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Shams, Z., De Vos, M., Satoh, K. (2014). ArgPROLEG: A Normative Framework for the JUF Theory. In: Nakano, Y., Satoh, K., Bekki, D. (eds) New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. JSAI-isAI 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8417. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10061-6_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10061-6_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-10060-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-10061-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation