Anything You Say May Be Used Against You in a Court of Law - Abstract Agent Argumentation (Triple-A)

Triple-A is an abstract argumentation model, distinguishing the global argumentation of judges from the local argumentation of accused, prosecutors, witnesses, lawyers, and experts. In Triple-A, agents have partial knowledge of the arguments and attacks of other agents, and they decide autonomously whether to accept or reject their own arguments, and whether to bring their arguments forward in court. The arguments accepted by the judge are based on a game-theoretic equilibrium among the argumentation of the other agents. The Triple-A theory can be used to distinguish various direct and indirect ways in which the arguments of an agent can be used against his or her other arguments.

[1]  Wiebe van der Hoek,et al.  Audience-Based Uncertainty in Abstract Argument Games , 2013, IJCAI.

[2]  Ken Satoh,et al.  Coalition Formability Semantics with Conflict-Eliminable Sets of Arguments , 2017, AAMAS.

[3]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract , 2008, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[4]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[5]  Gustavo Adrian Bodanza,et al.  Social Argument Justification: Some Mechanisms and Conditions for Their Coincidence , 2009, ECSQARU.

[6]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Heuristics in Argumentation: A Game-Theoretical Investigation , 2008, COMMA 2008.

[7]  Serena Villata,et al.  Multi-sorted Argumentation , 2011, TAFA.

[8]  Serena Villata,et al.  On the Input/Output behavior of argumentation frameworks , 2014, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Argumentation and Game Theory , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[10]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  AFRA: Argumentation framework with recursive attacks , 2011, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[11]  Bei Shui Liao,et al.  Toward incremental computation of argumentation semantics: A decomposition-based approach , 2013, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[12]  Gabriella Pigozzi,et al.  On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation , 2009, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[13]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law , 2010, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[14]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Mechanism design for abstract argumentation , 2008, AAMAS.

[15]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  ANGELIC Secrets: Bridging from Factors to Facts in US Trade Secrets , 2016, JURIX.

[16]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Two Faces of Strategic Argumentation in the Law , 2014, JURIX.

[17]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Representation of Case Law as an Argumentation Framework , 2002 .

[18]  Elizabeth Sklar,et al.  How Agents Alter Their Beliefs After an Argumentation-Based Dialogue , 2005, ArgMAS.

[19]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Aggregation of Attack Relations: A Social-Choice Theoretical Analysis of Defeasibility Criteria , 2008, FoIKS.

[20]  Srdjan Vesic,et al.  A formal analysis of the role of argumentation in negotiation dialogues , 2012, J. Log. Comput..

[21]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  On the merging of Dung's argumentation systems , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[22]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Did he jump or was he pushed? , 2009, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[24]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Judgment Aggregation in Multi-Agent Argumentation , 2014, J. Log. Comput..

[25]  Hannes Strass,et al.  Abstract Dialectical Frameworks Revisited , 2013, IJCAI.

[26]  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..

[27]  Kazuko Takahashi,et al.  Argumentation System with Changes of an Agent's Knowledge Base , 2009, IJCAI.

[28]  Serena Villata,et al.  Attack Semantics for Abstract Argumentation , 2011, IJCAI.

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

[30]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Extensive-Form Argumentation Games , 2005, EUMAS.

[31]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.