Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game

Prakken, Henry; Sartor, Giovanni

doi:10.1007/978-94-015-9010-5_5

Cited by 105 publications

(165 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

163

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On this method we are willing to include as many factors as possible, but we will produce rules which do not go beyond the minimum that we are entitled to infer. This latter effect is given by using the method of Prakken and Sartor (1998) for producing rules from cases, whereby the conjunction of all the pro-plaintiff factors present gives one rule, the conjunction of all the pro-defendant factors gives another rule, and the priority between them is determined by the decision.…”

Section: The ''Safe'' Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application

Chorley

Bench‐Capon

2006

Artif Intell Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In recent years several proposals to view reasoning with legal cases as theory construction have been advanced. The most detailed of these is that of Bench-Capon and Sartor, which uses facts, rules, values and preferences to build a theory designed to explain the decisions in a set of cases. In this paper we describe CATE (CAse Theory Editor), a tool intended to support the construction of theories as described by Bench-Capon and Sartor, and which produces executable code corresponding to a theory. CATE has been used in a series of experiments intended to explore a number of issues relating to such theories, including how the theories should be constructed, how sets of values should be compared, and the representation of cases using structured values as opposed to factors.

show abstract

Section: The ''Safe'' Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Representing the rules from these four cases in the manner of Prakken and Sartor (1998) yields the rule and value preferences shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 shows the Rule Preference and Value Preference sections from the theory as produced by CATE.…”

Section: The ''Safe'' Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application

Chorley

Bench‐Capon

2006

Artif Intell Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In CBR, dialogue games have also been applied to model the human reasoning about legal precedents (Prakken & Sartor, 1998). Dialogue games are interactions between two or more players, where each player 'moves' by posing statements in accordance with a set or predefined rules.…”

Section: Challenges For a Cbr Framework For Argumentation In Open Masmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS

Heras

Botti

Julián

2009

The Knowledge Engineering Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) are broadening their applications to open environments, where heterogeneous agents could enter into the system, form agents' organisations and interact. The high dynamism of open MAS gives rise to potential conflicts between agents and thus, to a need for a mechanism to reach agreements. Argumentation is a natural way of harmonising conflicts of opinion that has been applied to many disciplines, such as Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) and MAS. Some approaches that apply CBR to manage argumentation in MAS have been proposed in the literature. These improve agents' argumentation skills by allowing them to reason and learn from experiences. In this paper, we have reviewed these approaches and identified the current contributions of the CBR methodology in this area. As a result of this work, we have proposed several open issues that must be taken into consideration to develop a CBR framework that provides the agents of an open MAS with arguing and learning capabilities.

show abstract

“…In addition, in the domain of artificial intelligence and law, many computational and logical models of argument and debate, and of reasoning with conflicting information have been proposed [3,17,18]. In [18], Prakken and Sartor introduced a dialectical proof theory for an argumentation framework.…”

Section: Fig 1 Goal and Initial Situation Of The Persuasion Dialoguementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [18], Prakken and Sartor introduced a dialectical proof theory for an argumentation framework. A proof of a formula takes the form of a dialogue tree, in which each branch of the tree is a dialogue and the root of the tree is an argument for the formula.…”

Section: Fig 1 Goal and Initial Situation Of The Persuasion Dialoguementioning

confidence: 99%

Specifying and Implementing a Persuasion Dialogue Game Using Commitments and Arguments

Moulin

Chaib-draa

2005

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper we propose a new persuasion dialogue game for agent communication. We show how this dialogue game is modeled by a framework based on social commitments and arguments. Called Commitment and Argument Network (CAN), this framework allows us to model communication dynamics in terms of actions that agents apply to commitments and in terms of argumentation relations. This dialogue game is specified by indicating its entry conditions, its dynamics and its exit conditions. In order to solve the problem of the acceptance of arguments, the protocol integrates the concept of agents' trustworthiness in its specification. The paper proposes a set of algorithms for the implementation of the persuasion protocol and discusses their termination, complexity and correctness.

show abstract

Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game

Cited by 105 publications

References 19 publications

An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application

An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application

Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS

Specifying and Implementing a Persuasion Dialogue Game Using Commitments and Arguments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About