Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Voluntary Manslaughter? A Case Study with Meta-Argumentation with Supports

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (JSAI-isAI 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10247))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In a criminal case, the judge’s decision making often involves proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, the defendant’s intention to commit a crime from material vidence. A valid decision should be supported by some material evidence, and neither the material evidence itself nor the support that it gives to the conclusion should be invalidated by any other material evidence. Luckily, this sounds a familiar topic in abstract argumentation with supports. We describe an argumentation theory, which roughly corresponds to the tradition of evidential support, but which provides a meta-argumentation (or extended argumentation) framework where an argument can attack/support other argumentation components. We model our example of intention-to-kill in the theory.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hanrei Times No. 985, p. 300 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arisaka, R., Satoh, K.: Balancing rationality and utility in logic-based argumentation with classical logic sentences and belief contraction. In: Baldoni, M., Chopra, A.K., Son, T.C., Hirayama, K., Torroni, P. (eds.) PRIMA 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9862, pp. 168–180. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44832-9_10

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Liao, B.: Dealing with generic contrariness in structured argumentation. In: IJCAI, pp. 2727–2733 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bex, F., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Atkinson, K.: Did he jump or was he pushed? Abductive practical reasoning. Artif. Intell. Law 17(2), 79–99 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.: Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artif. Intell. Law 11(2), 125–165 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bex, F., van Koppen, P.J., Prakken, H., Verheij, B.: A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence. Artif. Intell. Law 18(2), 123–152 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Support in abstract argumentation. In: COMMA, pp. 111–122 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5–6), 286–310 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. 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). doi:10.1007/11518655_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds.) SUM 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6929, pp. 137–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23963-2_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. 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), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Gabbay, D.M.: Semantics for higher level attacks in extended argumentation frames part 1: overview. Stud. Logica. 93(2–3), 357–381 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Governatori, G., Padmanabhan, V.: A defeasible logic of policy-based intention. In: Gedeon, T.T.D., Fung, L.C.C. (eds.) AI 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2903, pp. 414–426. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24581-0_35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: BIO logical agents: norms, beliefs, intentions in defeasible logic. JAAMAS 17(1), 36–69 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Horn, L.R.: A Natural History of Negation, 2nd edn. The University Chicago Press, Chicago (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 173, 901–934 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Modgil, S., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Metalevel argumentation. J. Logic Comput. 21(6), 959–1003 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 195, 361–397 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Nielsen, S.H., Parsons, S.: A generalization of Dung’s abstract framework for argumentation. In: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 54–73 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nouioua, F., Risch, V.: Bipolar argumentation frameworks with specialized supports. In: ICTAI, pp. 215–218 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23963-2_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Oren, N., Reed, C., Luck, M.: Moving between argumentation frameworks. In: COMMA, pp. 379–390 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Prakken, H.: Analysing reasoning about evidence with formal models of argumentation. Law Probab. Risk 3(1), 33–50 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput. 1, 93–124 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan

    Ryuta Arisaka & Ken Satoh

Authors
  1. Ryuta Arisaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ken Satoh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryuta Arisaka .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Business Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tokyo, Japan

    Setsuya Kurahashi

  2. Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd., Kanagawa, Japan

    Yuiko Ohta

  3. Chiba University, Chiba, Japan

    Sachiyo Arai

  4. National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan

    Ken Satoh

  5. Ochanomizu University, Tokyo, Japan

    Daisuke Bekki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Arisaka, R., Satoh, K. (2017). Voluntary Manslaughter? A Case Study with Meta-Argumentation with Supports. In: Kurahashi, S., Ohta, Y., Arai, S., Satoh, K., Bekki, D. (eds) New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. JSAI-isAI 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10247. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61572-1_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61572-1_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61571-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61572-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation