Abstract
In this paper, we will show that theory-based legal argumentation can be formalized as a dialogue game tree. In [37], a variation of Olsson’s additive consolidation [29] is used for the formalization, but this dialogue game was not treed, because, in each move on the dialogue, the consolidation must construct a unique coherent theory, but not several coherent theories. Therefore, we abandon the requirement that rational consolidation must be unique, and we allow the consolidation to generate plural outputs. Such an operator will be applied for a dialogue game tree with Bench-Capon and Sartor’s example.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530 (1985)
Arrow, K.J.: Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd edn. Yale University Press, Yale (1963)
Ashley, K.D.: Modeling Legal Argument. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)
Bench-Capon, T., Sartor, G.: Theory Based Explanation of Case Law Domains. In: Proceedings of The Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’01), pp. 12–21. ACM, New York (2001)
Bench-Capon, T., Sartor, G.: A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence 150(1-2), 97–143 (2003)
Berman, D.H., Hafner, C.D.: Representing Teleological Structure in Case Based Reasoning. In: The Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’93), pp. 50–59. ACM, New York (1993)
Brewka, G.: Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation 11, 257–282 (2001)
Chorley, A., Bench-Capon, T.: AGATHA: Automated Construction of Case Law Theories Through Heuristic Search. In: Proceedings of The Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’05), pp. 45–54. ACM, New York (2005)
Doyle, J.: “Rational Belief Revision (Preliminary Report),”. In: Allen, J., Fikes, R., Sandewall, E. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference (KR’91), pp. 163–174. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1991)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)
Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)
Gärdenfors, P.: The dynamics of belief systems: Foundations vs. coherence theories. Revue International de Philosopie 44, 24–46 (1990)
Geffner, H., Pearl, J.: Conditional Entailment: Bridging Two Approaches to Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 53(2-3), 209–244 (1992)
Giusto, P.D., Governatori, G.: A New Approach to Base Revision. In: Barahona, P., Alferes, J.J. (eds.) EPIA 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1695, pp. 327–341. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Gordon, T.F.: The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1995)
Grove, A.: Two modelings for theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic 17, 157–170 (1988)
Hage, J.C.: Reasoning With Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)
Hamfelt, A., Eriksson, J., Nilsson, J.F.: A Metalogical Formalization of Legal Argumentation as Game Trees with Defeasible Reasoning. In: Proceedings of The Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’05), pp. 250–251. ACM, New York (2005)
Hansson, S.O.: Taking belief bases seriously. In: Prawitz, D., Westerstahl, D. (eds.) Logic and Philosophy of Science in Uppsala, pp. 13–28. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1994)
Hansson, S.O., Textbook, A.: A Textbook of Belief Dynamics. Theory Change and Database Updating. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)
Hansson, S.O.: Coherentist Contraction. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29, 315–330 (2000)
Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence 52, 263–294 (1991)
Klein, P., Warfield, T.A.: What price coherence? Analysis 54, 129–132 (1994)
Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., Magidor, M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence 41, 167–207 (1990)
Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence 104, 1–69 (1998)
Lehmann, D., Magidor, M.: What does a conditional knowledge base entail? Artificial Intelligence 55, 1–60 (1992)
Makinson, D.: General Patterns in Nonmonotonic Reasoning. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 3, pp. 35–110. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)
Maranhão, J.: Refinement. A tool to deal with inconsistencies. In: Proceedings of The Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’01), pp. 52–59. ACM, New York (2001)
Olsson, E.J.: Making Beliefs Coherent. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 7, 143–163 (1998)
Prakken, H.: Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)
Prakken, H.: A study of Accrual of Arguments, with Applications to Evidential Reasoning. In: Proceedings of The Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’05), pp. 85–94. ACM, New York (2005)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. In: Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, pp. 331–368 (1996)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: The role of logic in computational models of legal argument: a critical survey. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2408, pp. 342–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: The three faces of defeasibility in the law. Ratio Juris 17(1), 118–139 (2004)
Rott, H.: Change, choice and inference: a study of belief revision and nonmonotonic reasoning. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)
Sartor, G.: Teleological Arguments and Theory-based Dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10, 95–112 (2002)
Suzuki, Y., Tojo, S.: Additive Consolidation for Dialogue Game. In: Proceedings of The Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’05), pp. 105–114. ACM, New York (2005)
Suzuki, Y.: Additive Consolidation with Maximal Change. In: The 13th Workshop on Logic, Language, Information and Computation (WoLLIC’06) (to appear, 2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Suzuki, Y. (2007). Dialogue Game Tree with Nondeterministic Additive Consolidation. In: Inoue, K., Satoh, K., Toni, F. (eds) Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems. CLIMA 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4371. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69619-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69619-3_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-69618-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69619-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)