Henry Prakken
ABSTRACT
This paper presents an argument-based logic for reasoning about allocations of the burden of persuasion. The logic extends the system of Prakken (2001), which in turn modified the system of Prakken & Sartor (1996) with the possibility to distribute the burden of proof over both sides in an argument game. First the (2001) system is put in the context of a distinction of three types of proof burdens and it is argued that the proof burdens of that system are in fact burdens of persuasion. Then the (2001) system is modified to allow for defeasible reasoning about allocations of such burdens within the logic. The usefulness of the resulting system is illustrated with applications to real legal cases.
- T. J. M. Bench-Capon and H. Prakken. Justifying actions by accruing arguments. In P. E. Dunne and T. J. M. Bench-Capon, editors, Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pages 247--258. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2006. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321--57, 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Gordon and D. Walton. The Carneades argumentation framework - using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In P. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon, editors, Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA-06, pages 195--207, Amsterdam etc., 2006. IOS Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. F. Gordon, H. Prakken, and D. N. Walton. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 2007. To appear. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. C. Hage. Formalising legal coherence. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 22--31. ACM, New York, N. Y., 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. C. Hage. Comparing alternatives in the law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12:181--225, 2004.Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. R. Leenes. Burden of proof in dialogue games and Dutch civil procedure. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 109--118. ACM, New York, N.Y., 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Prakken. Modelling defeasibility in law: Logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae, 48:253--71, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Prakken. An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10:113--33, 2002.Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D. N. Walton. Dialogues about the burden of proof. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 115--124. ACM, New York, N.Y., 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Rules about rules: Assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:331--68, 1996.Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Presumptions and burdens of proof. In T. Van Engers, editor, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, pages 21--30. IOS Press, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Sartor. A formal logic for legal argumentation. Ratio Juris, 7:212--26, 1994.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Sartor. Defeasibility in legal reasoning. In Z. Bankowski, I. White, and U. Hahn, editors, Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning, pages 119--57. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1995.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Williams. Burdens and standards in civil litigation. Sydney Law Review, 25:165--188, 2003.Google Scholar
Recommendations
The burden of persuasion in structured argumentation
ICAIL '21: Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and LawIn this paper we provide an account of the burden of persuasion in the context of structured argumentation. A formal model for the burden of persuasion is defined, discussed, and used to capture the role of the burden of persuasion in adjudicating ...
Formalizing Adequacy: A Case Study for Higher-order Abstract Syntax
Adequacy is an important criterion for judging whether a formalization is suitable for reasoning about the actual object of study. The issue is particularly subtle in the expansive case of approaches to languages with name-binding. In prior work, ...
Formalizing and Computing Propositional Quantifiers
CPP 2023: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and ProofsA surprising result of Pitts (1992) says that propositional quantifiers are definable internally in intuitionistic propositional logic (IPC). The main contribution of this paper is to provide a formalization of Pitts’ result in the Coq proof assistant,...
Comments