Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive
Business IT + Informatics
Construction + Real Estate
Electrical Engineering + Electronics
Energy + Sustainability
Insurance + Risk
Finance + Banking
Management + Leadership
Marketing + Sales
Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Start single access now
Request access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top

Hint

Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book

Published in:
A Type-Theoretic Account of Neg-Raising Predicates in Tree Adjoining Grammars Read chapter Read first chapter

2014 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

ArgPROLEG: A Normative Framework for the JUF Theory

Authors : Zohreh Shams, Marina De Vos, Ken Satoh

Published in: New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Login to get access

Abstract

In this paper we propose ArgPROLEG, a normative framework for legal reasoning based on PROLEG, an implementation of the Japanese “theory of presupposed ultimate facts”(JUF). This theory was mainly developed with the purpose of modelling the process of decision making by judges in the court. Not having complete and accurate information about each case, makes uncertainty an unavoidable part of decision making for judges. In the JUF theory each party that puts forward a claim, due to associated burden of proof to each claim, it needs to prove it as well. Not being able to provide such a proof for a claim, enables the judges to discard that claim although they might not be certain about the truth. The framework that we offer benefits from the use of argumentation theory as well as normative framework in multi-agent systems, to bring the reasoning closer to the user. The nature of argumentation in dealing with incomplete information on the one hand and being presentable in the form of dialogues on the other hand, has furthered the emergence and popularity of argumentation in modelling legal disputes. In addition, the use of multiple agents allows more flexibility for the behaviour of the parties involved.

To get access to this content you need the following product:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt 90 Tage mit der neuen Mini-Lizenz testen!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe



 


Jetzt 90 Tage mit der neuen Mini-Lizenz testen!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt 90 Tage mit der neuen Mini-Lizenz testen!

inform now
previous chapter Requirements of Legal Knowledge Management Systems to Aid Normative Reasoning in Specialist Domains
next chapter Answering Yes/No Questions in Legal Bar Exams
Footnotes
1
DAF can also be referred to as an Abstract AF because it abstracts away the internal structure of arguments and instead, it merely focuses on attack relations among arguments.
 
2
We assume that a party can use all the exceptions available exhaustively, one-by-one, to make a successful counter attack. Thus, if the party cannot provide the required support for the first exception, it has the opportunity to try the second exception and so on.
 
Literature
1.
Balke, T., De Vos, M., Padget, J., Traskas, D.: On-line reasoning for institutionally-situated BDI agents. In: Yolum, P., Tumer, K., Stone, P., Sonenberg, L. (eds.) 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2011), pp. 1109–1110. IF0AAMAS, May 2011
2.
Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003) CrossRef
3.
Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argumentation in legal reasoning. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 363–382. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRef
4.
Bordini, R.H., Wooldridge, M., Hübner, J.F.: Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak using Jason (Wiley Series in Agent Technology). John Wiley & Sons, New York (2007) CrossRef
5.
Clark, K.V.: Negation as failure. In: Minker, J. (ed.) Logic and Data Bases, vol. 1, pp. 293–322. Plenum Press, New York (1978) CrossRef
6.
Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: 17th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), pp. 568–572. IEEE Computer Society (2005)
7.
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), 321–358 (1995) MathSciNetCrossRef
8.
Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M.: A unified framework for representation and development of dialectical proof procedures in argumentation. In: Boutilier, C. (ed.) Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 746–751 (2009)
9.
Eshghi, K., Kowalski, R.A.: Abduction compared with negation by failure. In: ICLP, pp. 234–254 (1989)
10.
Fan, X., Toni, F., Hussain, A.: Two-agent conflict resolution with assumption-based argumentation. In: Computational Models of ArgumentComputational Models of Argument (COMMA), pp. 231–242 (2010)
11.
Gaggl, S.A.: Solving argumentation frameworks using answer set programming. Master’s thesis, Technische Universitt, Wien (2009)
12.
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press (1988)
13.
Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 875–896 (2007) MathSciNetCrossRef
14.
Gordon, T.F., Walton, D.: Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL), pp. 137–146. ACM (2009)
15.
Kakas, A.C.: Default reasoning via negation as failure. In: Lakemeyer, G., Nebel, B. (eds.) ECAI-WS 1992. LNCS, vol. 810, pp. 160–178. Springer, Heidelberg (1994) CrossRef
16.
Prakken, H.: Formalising ordinary legal disputes: a case study. Artif. Intell. Law 16(4), 333–359 (2008) CrossRef
17.
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion. In: Proceedings of the 11th international Conference on Artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL ’07, pp. 97–106. ACM. New York (2007)
18.
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: More on presumptions and burdens of proof. In: Francesconi, E., Sartor, G., Tiscornia, D. (eds.) JURIX, volume 189 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 176–185. IOS Press (2008)
19.
Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: BDI agents: from theory to practice. In: Proceeding of the first International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), pp. 312–319 (1995)
20.
Satoh, K., Asai, K., Kogawa, T., Kubota, M., Nakamura, M., Nishigai, Y., Shirakawa, K., Takano, C.: PROLEG: an implementation of the presupposed ultimate fact theory of Japanese civil code by PROLOG technology. In: Bekki, D. (ed.) JSAI-isAI 2010. LNCS, vol. 6797, pp. 153–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRef
21.
Satoh, K., Kogawa, T., Okada, N., Omori, K., Omura, S., Tsuchiya, K.: On generality of PROLEG knowledgerepresentation. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Juris-informatics (JURISIN 2012), Miyazaki, Japan, pp. 115–128 (2012)
22.
Satoh, K., Kubota, M., Nishigai, Y., Takano, C.: Translating the Japanese presupposed ultimate fact theory into logic programming. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2009, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 162–171. IOS Press (2009)
23.
Satoh, K.: Logic programming and burden of proof in legal reasoning. New Gener. Comput. 30(4), 297–326 (2012) CrossRef
24.
Sergot, M.J., Sadri, F., Kowalski, R.A., Kriwaczek, F., Hammond, P., Cory, H.T.: The British nationality act as a logic program. Commun. ACM 29(5), 370–386 (1986) CrossRef
25.
Thang, P.M., Dung, P.M., Hung, N.D.: Towards a common framework for dialectical proof procedures in abstract argumentation. J. Logic Comput. 19(6), 1071–1109 (2009) MathSciNetCrossRef
26.
López y López, F., Luck, M.: A model of normative multi-agent systems and dynamic relationships. In: Lindemann, G., Moldt, D., Paolucci, M. (eds.) RASTA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2934, pp. 259–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRef
27.
López y López, F., Luck, M., d’Inverno, M.: A normative framework for agent-based systems. Comput. Math. Organiz. Theor. 12, 227–250 (2006)
28.
Yoshino, H.: On the logical foundations of compound predicate formulae for legal knowledge representation. Artif. Intell. Law 5(1–2), 77–96 (1997) CrossRef
Metadata
Title
ArgPROLEG: A Normative Framework for the JUF Theory
Authors
Zohreh Shams
Marina De Vos
Ken Satoh
Copyright Year
2014
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Book
New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-10060-9

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-10061-6

Copyright Year: 2014

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10061-6_13

Premium Partner

Neuer Inhalt
    Image Credits