Defeasible Systems in Legal Reasoning: A Comparative Assessment

Different formalisms for defeasible reasoning have been used to represent legal knowledge and to reason with it. In this work, we provide an overview of the following logic-based approaches to defeasible reasoning: Defeasible Logic, Answer Set Programming, ABA+, ASPIC+, and DeLP. We compare features of these approaches from three perspectives: the logical model (knowledge representation), the method (computational mechanisms), and the technology (available software). On this basis, we identify and apply criteria for assessing their suitability for legal applications. We discuss the different approaches through a legal running example

Meta-Argumentation Frameworks for Multi-party Dialogues

Postprin

Burden of persuasion in argumentation: A meta-argumentation approach

This paper examines the view of the burden of persuasion as meta argument and elaborates the meta-argumentative aspects of a burden-of-persuasion semantics in argumentation. An argumentation framework composed of a meta level (dealing with the burden) and an object level (dealing with standard arguments) is proposed and discussed, and its equivalence with the burden-of-persuasion model in argumentation is proved. Finally, a computationally-feasible implementation of the meta-argumentation approach is presented

Burden of persuasion in argumentation : a meta-argumentation approach

Published online: 14 February 2022This paper examines the view of the burden of persuasion as meta argument and elaborates the meta-argumentative aspects of a burden-of-persuasion semantics in argumentation. An argumentation framework composed of a meta level (dealing with the burden) and an object level (dealing with standard arguments) is proposed and discussed, and its equivalence with the burden-of-persuasion model in argumentation is proved. Finally, a computationally-feasible implementation of the meta-argumentation approach is presented

Formal Methods of Argumentation as Models of Engineering Design Decisions and Processes

Complex engineering projects comprise many individual design decisions. As these decisions are made over the course of months, even years, and across different teams of engineers, it is common for them to be based on different, possibly conflicting assumptions. The longer these inconsistencies go undetected, the costlier they are to resolve. Therefore it is important to spot them as early as possible. There is currently no software aimed explicitly at detecting inconsistencies in interrelated design decisions. This thesis is a step towards the development of such tools. We use formal methods of argumentation, a branch of artificial intelligence, as the foundation of a logical model of design decisions capable of handling inconsistency. It has three parts. First, argumentation is used to model the pros and cons of individual decisions and to reason about the possible worlds in which these arguments are justified. In the second part we study sequences of interrelated decisions. We identify cases where the arguments in one decision invalidate the justification for another decision, and develop a measure of the impact that choosing a specific option has on the consistency of the overall design. The final part of the thesis is concerned with non-deductive arguments, which are used in design debates, for example to draw analogies between past and current problems. Our model integrates deductive and non-deductive arguments side-by-side. This work is supported by our collaboration with the engineering department of Queen’s University Belfast and an industrial partner. The thesis contains two case studies of realistic problems and parts of it were implemented as software prototypes. We also give theoretical results demonstrating the internal consistency of our model