A Formal Logical Hybrid Theory of Argumentation and Explanation

Chapter
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 92)

Abstract

A logical account of the hybrid theory. This logical theory combines abductive, model-based reasoning (as is often used in diagnostical knowledge systems) with a formal framework for defeasible argumentation. A formal dialogue game, detailing a protocol for a rational discussion about the facts, is also defined.

Keywords

Inference Rule Evidential Theory Ground Instance Hybrid Theory Evidential Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allen, J.F. and Ferguson, G. (1994) Actions and events in interval temporal logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 4:5, 531–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bex, F.J., van Koppen, P.J., Prakken, H. and Verheij, B. (2010) Evidence for a good story – a hybrid theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bex, F.J. and Prakken, H (2004) Reinterpreting arguments in dialogue: an application to evidential reasoning. JURIX 2004: The 17th Annual Conference, 119–129, IOS Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. Bex, F.J. and Prakken, H. (2008) Investigating stories in a formal dialogue Game. Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2008, 73–84, IOS Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  5. Bex, F.J., Prakken, H., Reed, C. and Walton, D.N. (2003) Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11, 125–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bex, F.J., Prakken, H. and Verheij, B. (2007a) Formalising argumentative story – based analysis of evidence. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1–10, ACM Press, New York, (New York).Google Scholar
  7. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A. and Toni, F. (1997) An abstract, argumentation – theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93:1–2, 63–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bylander, T., Allemang, D., Tanner, M.C. and Josephson, J.R. (1991) The computational complexity of abduction. Artificial Intelligence 49:1–3, 25–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Console, L. and Dupré, D.T. (1994) Abductive reasoning with abstraction axioms. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 810, 98–112, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  10. Console, L. and Torasso, P. (1991) A spectrum of logical definitions of model – based diagnosis. Computational Intelligence 7:3, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Poot, C.J., Bokhorst, R.J., Koppen, P.J. van and Muller, E.R. (2004) Rechercheportret – Over Dillemma’s in de Opsporing, Kluwer, Alphen a.d. Rijn.Google Scholar
  12. Dung, P.M. (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n – person games. Artificial Intelligence 77:2, 321–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gabbay, D.M., Hogger, C.J. and Robinson, J.A. (1993) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Volume 1, Logical Foundations, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H. and Walton, D. (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171:10–15, 875–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hage, J.C. (1996) A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4:3, 199–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kautz, H.A. (1991) A formal theory of plan recognition and its implementation. In Allen, J.F., Kautz, H.A., Pelavin, R.N., and Tenenberg, J.D. (eds.), Reasoning About Plans, 69–124, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (California).Google Scholar
  17. Konolige, K. (1994) Using default and causal reasoning in diagnosis. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 11:1, 97–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loui, R.P. (1998) Process and policy: resource – bounded nondemonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14:1, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lucas, P. (1997) Symbolic diagnosis and its formalisation. The Knowledge Engineering Review 12, 109–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pollock, J.L. (1987) Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11:4, 481–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pollock, J.L. (1995) Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person, MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts).Google Scholar
  22. Poole, D. (1988) A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 36:1, 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Poole, D. (1994) Representing diagnosis knowledge. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 11:1, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Prakken, H. (1997) Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  25. Prakken, H. (2005b) Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15, 1009–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prakken, H. (2006) Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21:02, 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4:3, 331–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1997) Argument – based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non – classical Logics 7, 25–75.Google Scholar
  29. Prakken, H. and Vreeswijk, G. (2002) Logics for defeasible argumentation. In Goebel, R. and Guenthner, F. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 219–318, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  30. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S. and Sonenberg, L. (2004) Argumentation – based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18:04, 343–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rahwan, I. and Reed, C. (2009) The argument interchange format. In Rahwan, I. and Simari, G. (eds.), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Reiter, R. (1980) A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sartor, G. (2008) Legality Policies and Theories of Legality: From ‘Bananas’ to Radbruch’s Formula. EUI Working Papers LAW 27.Google Scholar
  34. Verheij, B. (1996) Rules, Reasons, Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat, Doctoral dissertation, University of Maastricht.Google Scholar
  35. Verheij, B. (2003a) DefLog: On the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation 13:3, 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Verheij, B. (2003b) Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11:2, 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Verheij, B. (2005a) Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation 19:3, 347–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Verheij, B., Hage, J.C. and Herik, H.J. van den. (1998) An integrated view on rules and principles. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6:1, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walton, D.N. (2002) Legal Argumentation and Evidence, Penn, State University Press, University Park (Pennsylvania).Google Scholar
  40. Anderson, T.J., Schum, D.A. and Twining, W.L. (2005) Analysis of Evidence, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Braak, S.W. van den (2010) Sensemaking Software for Crime Analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Intelligent Systems Group, Utrecht University (SIKS Dissertation Series No. 2010–2012).Google Scholar
  42. Wagenaar, W.A., Koppen, P.J. van and Crombag, H.F.M. (1993) Anchored Narratives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence, St. Martin’s Press, New York (New York).Google Scholar
  43. Keppens, J. and Schafer, B. (2005) Assumption – based peg unification for crime scenario modelling. JURIX 2005: The 18th Annual Conference, 49–58, IOS Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  44. Kowalski, R. and Sergot, M. (1986) A logic – based calculus of events. New Generation Computing 4:5, 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Dundee, School of ComputingDundeeUK

Personalised recommendations