A Carneades reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi

Carneades is an open source argument mapping application and a programming library for building argumentation support tools. In this paper, Carneades’ support for argument reconstruction, evaluation and visualization is illustrated by modeling most of the factual and legal arguments in Popov v Hayashi

Argumentation schemes in AI and Law

In this paper we describe the impact that Walton’s conception of argumentation schemes had on AI and Law research. We will discuss developments in argumentation in AI and Law before Walton’s schemes became known in that community, and the issues that were current in that work. We will then show how Walton’s schemes provided a means of addressing all of those issues, and so supplied a unifying perspective from which to view argumentation in AI and Law.</jats:p

Applying Recent Argumentation Methods to Some Ancient Examples of Plausible Reasoning

Plausible (eikotic) reasoning known from ancient Greek (late Academic) skeptical philosophy is shown to be a clear notion that can be analyzed by argu- mentation methods, and that is important for argumentation studies. It is shown how there is a continuous thread running from the Sophists to the skeptical philosopher Carneades, through remarks of Locke and Bentham on the subject, to recent research in artificial intelligence. Eleven characteristics of plausible reasoning are specified by analyzing key examples of it recognized as important in ancient Greek skeptical philosophy using an artificial intelligence model called the Carneades Argumentation System (CAS). By applying CAS to ancient examples it is shown how plausible reasoning is especially useful for gaining a better understanding of evidential reasoning in law, and argued that it can also be applied to everyday argumentation. Our analysis of the snake and rope example of Carneades is also used to point out some ways CAS needs to be extended if it is to more fully model the views of this ancient philosopher on argumentation

Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law:the second decade

The first issue of Artificial Intelligence and Law journal was published in 1992. This paper provides commentaries on nine significant papers drawn from the Journal’s second decade. Four of the papers relate to reasoning with legal cases, introducing contextual considerations, predicting outcomes on the basis of natural language descriptions of the cases, comparing different ways of representing cases, and formalising precedential reasoning. One introduces a method of analysing arguments that was to become very widely used in AI and Law, namely argumentation schemes. Two relate to ontologies for the representation of legal concepts and two take advantage of the increasing availability of legal corpora in this decade, to automate document summarisation and for the mining of arguments

Modelling Value-Oriented Legal Reasoning in LogiKEy

The logico-pluralist LogiKEy knowledge engineering methodology and framework is applied to the modelling of a theory of legal balancing, in which legal knowledge (cases and laws) is encoded by utilising context-dependent value preferences. The theory obtained is then used to formalise, automatically evaluate, and reconstruct illustrative property law cases (involving the appropriation of wild animals) within the Isabelle/HOL proof assistant system, illustrating how LogiKEy can harness interactive and automated theorem-proving technology to provide a testbed for the development and formal verification of legal domain-specific languages and theories. Modelling value-oriented legal reasoning in that framework, we establish novel bridges between the latest research in knowledge representation and reasoning in non-classical logics, automated theorem proving, and applications in legal reasoning

In memoriam Douglas N. Walton: the influence of Doug Walton on AI and law

Doug Walton, who died in January 2020, was a prolific author whose work in informal logic and argumentation had a profound influence on Artificial Intelligence, including Artificial Intelligence and Law. He was also very interested in interdisciplinary work, and a frequent and generous collaborator. In this paper seven leading researchers in AI and Law, all past programme chairs of the International Conference on AI and Law who have worked with him, describe his influence on their work

Representation Of Case Law For Argumentative Reasoning

Modelling argumentation based on legal cases has been a central topic of AI and Law since its very beginnings. The current established view is that facts must be determined on the basis of evidence. Next, these facts must be used to ascribe legally significant predicates (factors and issues) to the case, on the basis of which the outcome can be established. This thesis aims to provide a method to encapsulate the knowledge of bodies of case law from various legal domains using a recent development in AI knowledge representation, Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADFs), as the central feature of the design method. Three legal domains in the US Courts are used throughout the thesis: The domain of the Automobile Exception to the Fourth Amendment, which has been freshly analysed in terms of factors in this thesis; the US Trade Secrets domain analysed from well-known legal case-based reasoning systems (CATO and IBP); and the Wild Animals domain analysed extensively in AI and Law. In this work, ADFs play a role akin to that of Entity-Relationship models in the design of database systems to design and implement programs intended to decide cases, described as sets of factors, according to a theory of a particular domain based on a set of precedent cases relating to that domain. The ADFs in this thesis are instantiated from different starting points: factor-based representation of oral dialogues and factor-based analysis of legal opinions. A legal dialogue representation model is defined for the US Supreme Court Oral Hearing dialogues. The role of these hearings is to identify the components that can form the basis of an argument that will resolve the case. Dialogue moves used by participants have been identified as the dialogue proceeds to assert and modify argument components in term of issues, factors and facts, and to produce what are called Argument Component Trees (ACTs) for each participant in the dialogue, showing how these components relate to one another. The resulting trees can be then merged and used as input to decide the accepted components using an ADF. The model is illustrated using two landmark case studies in the Automobile Exception domain: Carney v. California and US v. Chadwick. A legal justification model is defined to capture knowledge in a legal domain and to provide justification and transparency of legal decisions. First, a legal domain ADF is instantiated from the factor hierarchy of CATO and IBP, then the method is applied to the other two legal domains. In each domain, the cases are expressed in terms of factors organised into an ADF, from which an executable program can be implemented in a straightforward way by taking advantage of the closeness of the acceptance conditions of the ADF to components of an executable program. The proposed method is evaluated to test the ease of implementation, the efficacy of the resulting program, the ease of refinement, transparency of the reasoning and transferability across legal domains. This evaluation suggests ways of improving the decision by incorporating the case facts, and considering justification and reasoning using portions of precedents. The final result is ANGELIC (ADF for kNowledGe Encapsulation of Legal Information from Cases), a method for producing programs that decide the cases with a high degree of accuracy in multiple domains