Advertisement

Reasoning by a Bipolar Argumentation Framework for PROLEG

  • Tatsuki Kawasaki
  • Sosuke Moriguchi
  • Kazuko TakahashiEmail author
Conference paper
  • 109 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11717)

Abstract

We develop a system allowing lawyers and law school students to analyze court judgments. We describe a transformation from the logic programming language PROLEG to a bipolar argumentation framework (BAF) and the legal reasoning involved. Legal knowledge written in a PROLEG program is transformed into a BAF, in which the structure of argumentation in a judgment is clear. We describe two types of reasoning by the BAF: clarification of the entire structure and causality of arguments, and identification of the required evidence, and we show its applications on legal reasoning.

Keywords

Bipolar argumentation framework PROLEG Reasoning Semantics 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP17H06103.

References

  1. 1.
    Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argumentation in legal reasoning. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 363–382. Springer, Boston (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Support in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp. 40–51 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proceedings of KR 2010, pp. 102–111 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brewka, G., Ellmauthaler, S., Strass, H., Wallner, J.P., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks revisited. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2013, pp. 803–809 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11853886_11CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Coalitions of arguments: a tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25, 83–109 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 54, 876–899 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proceedings of ICLP, pp. 1070–1080 (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kawasaki, T., Moriguchi, S., Takahashi, K.: Transformation from PROLEG to a bipolar argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of SAFA 2018, pp. 36–47 (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nouioua, F., Risch, V.: Argumentation frameworks with necessities. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds.) SUM 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6929, pp. 163–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23963-2_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pp. 276–284 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.: Dialogues about the burden of proof. In: Proceedings of ICAIL 2005, pp. 115–124 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.): Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Boston (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reed, C., Rowe, G.: Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int. J. AI Tools 13, 961–980 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Satoh, K., et al.: PROLEG: an implementation of the presupposed ultimate fact theory of Japanese civil code by PROLOG technology. In: Onada, T., Bekki, D., McCready, E. (eds.) JSAI-isAI 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6797, pp. 153–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25655-4_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Satoh, K., et al.: On generality of PROLEG knowledge representation. In: Proceedings of JURISIN 2012, pp. 115–128 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tatsuki Kawasaki
    • 1
  • Sosuke Moriguchi
    • 1
  • Kazuko Takahashi
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Science and TechnologyKwansei Gakuin UniversitySandaJapan

Personalised recommendations