On Legal Teleological Reasoning

Given a common pool of facts and legal rules, Judges on a panel may form different justifications for decisions, which are then voted upon. It is clear that a Judge’s personal values and purposes play in developing their opinion, which is a form of teleological reasoning. The paper introduces the Value-based Formal Reasoning (VFR) framework, which describes how a Judge’s personal values can be used in the construction of a justification for a decision

Dimensions and values for legal CBR

We build on two recent attempts to formalise reasoning with dimensions which effectively map dimensions into factors. These enable propositional reasoning, but sometimes a balance between dimensions needs to be struck, and to permit trade offs we need to keep the magnitudes and so reason more geometrically. We discuss dimensions and values, arguing that values can play several distinct roles, both explaining preferences between factors and indicating the purposes of the law

Artificial intelligence as law:Presidential address to the seventeenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law

Information technology is so ubiquitous and AI's progress so inspiring that also legal professionals experience its benefits and have high expectations. At the same time, the powers of AI have been rising so strongly that it is no longer obvious that AI applications (whether in the law or elsewhere) help promoting a good society; in fact they are sometimes harmful. Hence many argue that safeguards are needed for AI to be trustworthy, social, responsible, humane, ethical. In short: AI should be good for us. But how to establish proper safeguards for AI? One strong answer readily available is: consider the problems and solutions studied in AI & Law. AI & Law has worked on the design of social, explainable, responsible AI aligned with human values for decades already, AI & Law addresses the hardest problems across the breadth of AI (in reasoning, knowledge, learning and language), and AI & Law inspires new solutions (argumentation, schemes and norms, rules and cases, interpretation). It is argued that the study of AI as Law supports the development of an AI that is good for us, making AI & Law more relevant than ever

Relating the ANGELIC methodology and ASPIC+

We relate the ANGELIC methodology for acquiring and encapsulating domain knowledge to the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. In so doing we hope to facilitate the building of applications in concrete domains by linking a successful methodology to a proven theoretical framework. We use an example from the ASPIC+ literature to illustrate the relationship

Lessons rom implementing factors with magnitude

We discuss the lessons learned from implementing a CATO style system using factors with magnitude. In particular we identify that giving factors magnitudes enables a diversity of reasoning styles and arguments. We distinguish a variety of ways in which factors combine to determine abstract factors. We discuss several different roles for values. Finally we identify the additional value related information required to produce a working program: thresholds and weights as well as a simple preference ordering

Combining Fuzzy Logic and Formal Argumentation for Legal Interpretation

International audienceThe interpretation of a norm is often uncertain and connicting. In this paper we propose a model for arguing about legal interpretation , which considers the problems of vagueness. After motivating our adoption of graded categories as a tool to tackle the problem of open texture in legal interpretation, we introduce a model based on fuzzy logic and argumentation. Then, we conduct a case study by using an example from medically assisted reproduction

Handling Norms in Multi-Agent System by Means of Formal Argumentation

International audienceFormal argumentation is used to enrich and analyse normative multi-agent systems in various ways. In this chapter, we discuss three examples from the literature of handling norms by means of formal argumentation. First, we discuss how existing ways to resolve conflicts among norms using priorities can be represented in formal argumentation, by showing that the so-called Greedy and Reduction approaches can be represented using the weakest and the last link principles respectively. Based on such representation results, formal argumentation can be used to explain the detachment of obligations and permissions from hierarchical normative systems in a new way. Second, we discuss how formal argumentation can be used as a general theory for developing new approaches for normative reasoning, using a dynamic ASPIC-based legal argumentation theory. We show how existing logics of normative systems can be used to analyse such new argumentation systems. Third, we show how argumentation can be used to reason about other challenges in the area of normative multiagent systems as well, by discussing a model for arguing about legal interpretation. In particular, we show how fuzzy logic combined with formal argumentation can be used to reason about the adoption of graded categories and thus address the problem of open texture in normative interpretation. Our aim to discuss these three examples is to inspire new applications of formal argumentation to the challenges of normative reasoning in multiagent systems