ArgPROLEG: A Normative Framework for the JUF Theory

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.

[1]  Hajime Yoshino.  On the Logical Foundations of Compound Predicate Formulae for Legal Knowledge Representation , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[2]  K. Satoh,et al.  On Generality of PROLEG Knowledge Representation , 2012 .

[3]  Ken Satoh,et al.  PROLEG: An Implementation of the Presupposed Ultimate Fact Theory of Japanese Civil Code by PROLOG Technology , 2010, JSAI-isAI Workshops.

[4]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  What Is Negation as Failure? , 2012, Logic Programs, Norms and Action.

[5]  Marina De Vos,et al.  Normative Run-Time Reasoning for Institutionally-Situated BDI Agents , 2011, 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology.

[6]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  The British Nationality Act as a logic program , 1986, CACM.

[7]  Michael Luck,et al.  A normative framework for agent-based systems , 2006, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[8]  Henry Prakken,et al.  The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation in Legal Reasoning , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[10]  Gerhard Lakemeyer,et al.  Foundations of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning , 1992, ECAI Workshop on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.

[11]  E. Maier.  New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence , 2009 .

[12]  Michael Luck,et al.  A Model of Normative Multi-agent Systems and Dynamic Relationships , 2002, RASTA.

[13]  Pierre Marquis,et al.  Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks , 2005, 17th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI'05).

[14]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion , 2007, ICAIL.

[15]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes , 2009, ICAIL.

[16]  Henry Prakken,et al.  More on Presumptions and Burdens of Proof , 2008, JURIX.

[17]  Marina De Vos,et al.  On-line reasoning for institutionally-situated BDI agents , 2011, AAMAS.

[18]  Henry Prakken,et al.  More on Presumptions and Burdens of Proof , 2008 .

[19]  Antonis C. Kakas,et al.  Default Reasoning via Negation as Failure , 1992, ECAI Workshop on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.

[20]  Francesca Toni,et al.  Two-Agent Conflict Resolution with Assumption-Based Argumentation , 2010, COMMA.

[21]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Towards a Common Framework for Dialectical Proof Procedures in Abstract Argumentation , 2009, J. Log. Comput..

[22]  Robert A. Kowalski,et al.  Abduction Compared with Negation by Failure , 1989, ICLP.

[23]  Jack Minker,et al.  Logic and Data Bases , 1978, Springer US.

[24]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak using Jason (Wiley Series in Agent Technology) , 2007 .

[25]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  A Unified Framework for Representation and Development of Dialectical Proof Procedures in Argumentation , 2009, IJCAI.

[26]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  BDI Agents: From Theory to Practice , 1995, ICMAS.

[27]  Chitta Baral,et al.  Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving , 2003 .

[28]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[29]  Ken Satoh.  Logic Programming and Burden of Proof in Legal Reasoning , 2012, New Generation Computing.

[30]  Ken Satoh,et al.  Translating the Japanese Presupposed Ultimate Fact Theory into Logic Programming , 2009, JURIX.

[31]  Gabriela Lindemann,et al.  Regulated Agent-Based Social Systems , 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[32]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation in artificial intelligence , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[33]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Formalising ordinary legal disputes: a case study , 2008, Artificial Intelligence and Law.