Abstract argumentation

In this paper we explore the thesis that the role of argumentation in practical reasoning in general and legal reasoning in particular is to justify the use of defeasible rules to derive a conclusion in preference to the use of other defeasible rules to derive a conflicting conclusion. The defeasibility of rules is expressed by means of non-provability claims as additional conditions of the rules.We outline an abstract approach to defeasible reasoning and argumentation which includes many existing formalisms, including default logic, extended logic programming, non-monotonic modal logic and auto-epistemic logic, as special cases. We show, in particular, that the admissibility semantics for all these formalisms has a natural argumentation-theoretic interpretation and proof procedure, which seem to correspond well with informal argumentation.In the admissibility semantics there is only one way for one argument to attack another, namely by undermining one of its non-provability claims. In this paper, we show how other kinds of attack between arguments, specifically how rebuttal and priority attacks, can be reduced to the undermining of non-provability claims.     

Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic

This paper describes an approach to legal logic based on the formal analysis of argumentation schemes. Argumentation schemes a notion borrowed from the .eld of argumentation theory - are a kind of generalized rules of inference, in the sense that they express that given certain premises a particular conclusion can be drawn. However, argumentation schemes need not concern strict, abstract, necessarily valid patterns of reasoning, but can be defeasible, concrete and contingently valid, i.e., valid in certain contexts or under certain circumstances. A method is presented to analyze argumentation schemes and it is shown how argumentation schemes can be embedded in a formal model of dialectical argumentation.     

Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation

The present paper discusses experimental argument assistance tools. In contrast with automated reasoning tools, the objective is not to replace reasoning, but to guide the user's production of arguments. Two systems are presented, and based on . The focus is on defeasible argumentation with an eye on the law. Argument assistants for defeasible argumentation naturally correspond to a view of the application of law as dialectical theory construction. The experiments provide insights into the design of argument assistants, and show the pros and cons of different ways of representing argumentative data. The development of the argumentation theories underlying the systems has culminated in the logical system that formalizes the interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. introduces an innovative use of conditionals expressing support and attack. This allows the expression of warrants for support and attack, making it a transparent and flexible system of defeasible argumentation.     

Why Non-Monotonic Logic is Inadequate to Represent Balancing Arguments

This paper analyses the logical structure of the balancing of conflicting normative arguments, and asks whether non-monotonic logic is adequate to represent this type of legal or practical reasoning. Norm conflicts are often regarded as a field of application for non-monotonic logics. This paper argues, however, that the balancing of normative arguments consists of an act of judgement, not a logical inference, and that models of deductive as well as of defeasible reasoning do not give an adequate account of its structure. Moreover, it argues that as far as the argumentation consists in logical inferences, deductive logic suffices for reconstructing the argumentation from the internal point of view of someone making normative judgements.     

Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks

The abstract nature of Dung's seminal theory of argumentation accounts for its widespread application as a general framework for various species of non-monotonic reasoning, and, more generally, reasoning in the presence of conflict. A Dung argumentation framework is instantiated by arguments and a binary conflict based attack relation, defined by some underlying logical theory. The justified arguments under different extensional semantics are then evaluated, and the claims of these arguments define the inferences of the underlying theory. To determine a unique set of justified arguments often requires a preference relation on arguments to determine the success of attacks between arguments. However, preference information is often itself defeasible, conflicting and so subject to argumentation. Hence, in this paper we extend Dung's theory to accommodate arguments that claim preferences between other arguments, thus incorporating meta-level argumentation based reasoning about preferences in the object level. We then define and study application of the full range of Dung's extensional semantics to the extended framework, and study special classes of the extended framework. The extended theory preserves the abstract nature of Dung's approach, thus aiming at a general framework for non-monotonic formalisms that accommodate defeasible reasoning about as well as with preference information. We illustrate by formalising argument based logic programming with defeasible priorities in the extended theory.     

An argumentation framework in default logic

This article presents a formal theory about nontrivial reasoning with inconsistent information, applicable, among other things, to defeasible reasoning. The theory, which is inspired by a formal analysis of legal argument, is based on the idea that inconsistency tolerant reasoning is more than revising an unstructural set of premises; rather it should be regarded as constructing and comparing arguments for incompatible conclusions. This point of view gives rise to two important observations, both pointing at some flaws of other theories. The first is that arguments should be compared as they are constructed, viz. step-by-step, while the second observation is that a knowledge representation language is needed with a defeasible conditional, since the material implication gives rise to arguments which are not constructed in actual reasoning. Accordingly, a nonmonotonic logic, default logic, is chosen as the formalism underlying the argumentation framework. The general structure of the framework allows for any standard for comparing pairs of arguments; in this study two such standards are investigated, based on specificity and on orderings of the premises.     

ANGLE: An autonomous, normative and guidable agent with changing knowledge

Some emerging computing systems (especially autonomic computing systems) raise several challenges to autonomous agents, including (1) how to reflect the dynamics of business requirements, (2) how to coordinate with external agents with sufficient level of security and predictability, and (3) how to perform reasoning with dynamic and incomplete knowledge, including both informational knowledge (observations) and motivational knowledge (for example, policy rules and contract rules). On the basis of defeasible logic and argumentation, this paper proposes an autonomous, normative and guidable agent model, called ANGLE, to cope with these challenges. This agent is established by combining beliefs-desires-intentions (BDI) architecture with policy-based method and the mechanism of contract-based coordination. Its architecture, knowledge representation, as well as reasoning and decision-making, are presented in this paper. ANGLE is characteristic of the following three aspects. First, both its motivational knowledge and informational knowledge are changeable, and allowed to be incomplete, inconsistent/conflicting. Second, its knowledge is represented in terms of extended defeasible logic with modal operators. Different from the existing defeasible theories, its theories (including belief theory, goal theory and intention theory) are dynamic (called dynamic theories), reflecting the variations of observations and external motivational knowledge. Third, its reasoning and decision-making are based on argumentation. Due to the dynamics of underlying theories, argument construction is not a monotonic process, which is different from the existing argumentation framework where arguments are constructed incrementally.     

Extending abstract argumentation systems theory

In this paper, we extend the theory of abstract argumentation systems proposed by Vreeswijk (1997). This framework stands at a high abstraction level and provides a general model for argumentation activity. However, the theory reveals an inherent limitation in that the premises of the argumentation process are assumed to be indefeasible, and this introduces the need of an implicit constraint on the strength of the arguments, in order to preserve correctness. In many application contexts the information available to start reasoning is not guaranteed to be completely reliable, therefore it is natural to assume that premises can be discarded during the argumentation process. We extend the theory by admitting that premises can be defeated and relaxing the implicit assumption about their strength.Besides fixing the technical problems related to this hidden assumption (e.g., ensuring that warranted arguments are compatible), our proposal provides an integrated model for belief revision and defeasible reasoning, confirming the suitability of argumentation as a general model for the activity of intelligent reasoning in presence of various kinds of uncertainty.     

The epistemic basis of defeasible reasoning

This article argues that: (i) Defeasible reasoning is the use of distinctive procedures for belief revision when new evidence or new authoritative judgment is interpolated into a system of beliefs about an application domain. (ii) These procedures can be explicated and implemented using standard higher-order logic combined with epistemic assumptions about the system of beliefs. The procedures mentioned in (i) depend on the explication in (ii), which is largely described in terms of a Prolog program, EVID, which implements a system for interactive, defeasible reasoning when combined with an application knowledge base. It is shown that defeasible reasoning depends on a meta-level Closed World Assumption applied to the relationship between supporting evidence and a defeasible conclusion based on this evidence. Thesis (i) is then further defended by showing that the EVID explication of defeasible reasoning has sufficient representational power to cover a wide variety of practical applications of defeasible reasoning, especially in the context of decision making.     

On Resolving Conflicts Between Arguments

Argument systems are based on the idea that one can construct arguments for propositions—structured reasons justifying the belief in a proposition. Using defeasible rules, arguments need not be valid in all circumstances, therefore, it might be possible to construct an argument for a proposition as well as its negation. When arguments support conflicting propositions, one of the arguments must be defeated, which raises the question of which (sub‐) arguments can be subject to defeat. In legal argumentation, metarules determine the valid arguments by considering the last defeasible rule of each argument involved in a conflict. Since it is easier to evaluate arguments using their last rules, can a conflict be resolved by considering only the last defeasible rules of the arguments involved? We propose a new argument system where, instead of deriving a defeat relation between arguments, arguments for the defeat of defeasible rules are constructed. This system allows us to determine a set of valid (undefeated) arguments in linear time using an algorithm based on a JTMS, allows conflicts to be resolved using only the last rules of the arguments, allows us to establish a relation with Default Logic, and allows closure properties such as cumulativity to be proved. We propose an extension of the argument system based on a proposal for reasoning by cases in default logic.     

Inductive inference and argumentation methods in modern intelligent decision support systems

Improvement of the classification quality for the generalization problem is considered. In order to improve the classification models produced by generalization algorithms, it is proposed to use argumentation methods based on defeasible reasoning with justification degrees. New methods and algorithms are proposed, and experimental results on various test data sets are described, including instances with noisy initial data.     

On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms

Argumentation theory has become an important topic in the field of AI. The basic idea is to construct arguments in favor and against a statement, to select the “acceptable” ones and, finally, to determine whether the original statement can be accepted or not. Several argumentation systems have been proposed in the literature. Some of them, the so-called rule-based systems, use a particular logical language with strict and defeasible rules. While these systems are useful in different domains (e.g. legal reasoning), they unfortunately lead to very unintuitive results, as is discussed in this paper. In order to avoid such anomalies, in this paper we are interested in defining principles, called rationality postulates, that can be used to judge the quality of a rule-based argumentation system. In particular, we define two important rationality postulates that should be satisfied: the consistency and the closure of the results returned by that system. We then provide a relatively easy way in which these rationality postulates can be warranted for a particular rule-based argumentation system developed within a European project on argumentation.     

Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract

To create a programming environment for contract dispute resolution, we propose an extension of assumption-based argumentation into modular assumption-based argumentation in which different modules of argumentation representing different knowledge bases for reasoning about beliefs and facts and for representation and reasoning with the legal doctrines could be built and assembled together. A distinct novel feature of modular argumentation in compare with other modular logic-based systems like Prolog is that it allows references to different semantics in the same module at the same time, a feature critically important for application of argumentation in legal domains like contract dispute resolution where the outcomes of court cases often depend on whether credulous or skeptical modes of reasoning were applied by the contract parties. We apply the new framework to model the doctrines of contract breach and mutual mistake.     

A modular translation from defeasible nets to defeasible logics

Abstract

The sceptical inheritance nets introduced in Horty et al. [Proceedings of AAAI-87 (1987):358-363] are translated into a version of Nute's defeasible logic. Moreover this translation is modular in the sense of Thomason and Horty [Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Springer-Verlag (1989):234]. Apart from the importance of relating two nonmonotonic reasoning formalisms, this result shows that the reasoning mechanisms underlying defeasible logic and defeasible nets are the same. Yet they were invented independently and set in totally different contexts. This is perhaps some evidence that the underlying nonmonotonic reasoning mechanism is mainly correct. We also observe that since defeasible logics can contain both absolute and defeasible rules, they provided a uniform setting for considering nets which contain both strict and defeasible arcs.     

Argument diagram extraction from evidential Bayesian networks

Bayesian networks (BN) and argumentation diagrams (AD) are two predominant approaches to legal evidential reasoning, that are often treated as alternatives to one another. This paper argues that they are, instead, complimentary and proposes the beginnings of a method to employ them in such a manner. The Bayesian approach tends to be used as a means to analyse the findings of forensic scientists. As such, it constitutes a means to perform evidential reasoning. The design of Bayesian networks that accurately and comprehensively represent the relationships between investigative hypotheses and evidence remains difficult and sometimes contentious, however. Argumentation diagrams are representations of reasoning, and are used as a means to scrutinise reasoning (among other applications). In evidential reasoning, they tend to be used to represent and scrutinise the way humans reason about evidence. This paper examines how argumentation diagrams can be used to scrutinise Bayesian evidential reasoning by developing a method to extract argument diagrams from BN.     

Probabilistic rule-based argumentation for norm-governed learning agents

This paper proposes an approach to investigate norm-governed learning agents which combines a logic-based formalism with an equation-based counterpart. This dual formalism enables us to describe the reasoning of such agents and their interactions using argumentation, and, at the same time, to capture systemic features using equations. The approach is applied to norm emergence and internalisation in systems of learning agents. The logical formalism is rooted into a probabilistic defeasible logic instantiating Dung??s argumentation framework. Rules of this logic are attached with probabilities to describe the agents?? minds and behaviours as well as uncertain environments. Then, the equation-based model for reinforcement learning, defined over this probability distribution, allows agents to adapt to their environment and self-organise.     

Digital technologies and artificial intelligence’s present and foreseeable impact on lawyering,judging, policing and law enforcement

‘AI & Law’ research has been around since the 1970s, even though with shifting emphasis. This is an overview of the contributions of digital technologies, both artificial intelligence and non-AI smart tools, to both the legal professions and the police. For example, we briefly consider text mining and case-automated summarization, tools supporting argumentation, tools concerning sentencing based on the technique of case-based reasoning, the role of abductive reasoning, research into applying AI to legal evidence, tools for fighting crime and tools for identification.     

A formal model of adjudication dialogues

This article presents a formal dialogue game for adjudication dialogues. Existing AI & law models of legal dialogues and argumentation-theoretic models of persuasion are extended with a neutral third party, to give a more realistic account of the adjudicator’s role in legal procedures. The main feature of the model is a division into an argumentation phase, where the adversaries plea their case and the adjudicator has a largely mediating role, and a decision phase, where the adjudicator decides the dispute on the basis of the claims, arguments and evidence put forward in the argumentation phase. The model allows for explicit decisions on admissibility of evidence and burden of proof by the adjudicator in the argumentation phase. Adjudication is modelled as putting forward arguments, in particular undercutting and priority arguments, in the decision phase. The model reconciles logical aspects of burden of proof induced by the defeasible nature of arguments with dialogical aspects of burden of proof as something that can be allocated by explicit decisions on legal grounds.

A defeasible reasoning framework for human mental workload representation and assessment

Human mental workload (MWL) has gained importance in the last few decades as an important design concept. It is a multifaceted complex construct mainly applied in cognitive sciences and has been defined in many different ways. Although measuring MWL has potential advantages in interaction and interface design, its formalisation as an operational and computational construct has not sufficiently been addressed. This research contributes to the body of knowledge by providing an extensible framework built upon defeasible reasoning, and implemented with argumentation theory (AT), in which MWL can be better defined, measured, analysed, explained and applied in different human–computer interactive contexts. User studies have demonstrated how a particular instance of this framework outperformed state-of-the-art subjective MWL assessment techniques in terms of sensitivity, diagnosticity and validity. This in turn encourages further application of defeasible AT for enhancing the representation of MWL and improving the quality of its assessment.