A tool in modelling disagreement in law: preferring the most specific argument
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] David S. Touretzky,et al. The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems , 1984 .
[2] James P. Delgrande,et al. An Approach to Default Reasoning Based on a First-Order Conditional Logic: Revised Report , 1987, Artif. Intell..
[3] Gerhard Brewka,et al. Preferred Subtheories: An Extended Logical Framework for Default Reasoning , 1989, IJCAI.
[4] Anja Oskamp,et al. PROLEXS divide and rule: a legal application , 1989, ICAIL '89.
[5] David Poole,et al. A Logical Framework for Default Reasoning , 1988, Artif. Intell..
[6] Henry Prakken,et al. A logical framework for modelling legal argument , 1993, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law.
[7] Thomas F. Gordon. Issue spotting in a system for searching interpretation spaces , 1989, ICAIL '89.
[8] Tom Routen. Hierarchically organised formalisations , 1989, ICAIL '89.
[9] David Poole,et al. On the Comparison of Theories: Preferring the Most Specific Explanation , 1985, IJCAI.
[10] Ronald Prescott Loui,et al. Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference , 1987, Comput. Intell..
[11] Donald Nute,et al. Defeasible Reasoning: A Philosophical Analysis in Prolog , 1988 .
[12] Raymond Reiter,et al. A Logic for Default Reasoning , 1987, Artif. Intell..
[13] Kevin D. Ashley,et al. A case-based system for trade secrets law , 1987, ICAIL '87.
[14] Raymond Reiter,et al. On Inheritance Hierarchies With Exceptions , 1983, AAAI.