Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link
ICAIL '93 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Modeling Legal Arguments: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals
Modeling Legal Arguments: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals
A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values
Artificial Intelligence - Special issue on AI and law
Towards a computational account of persuasion in law
ICAIL '03 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Arguing about cases as practical reasoning
ICAIL '05 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
The Carneades Argumentation FrameworkUsing Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
The Carneades Argumentation FrameworkUsing Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
Arguments, Values and Baseballs: Representation of Popov v. Hayashi
Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference
Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological, and hypothetical legal reasoning
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Case law in extended argumentation frameworks
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy
Artificial Intelligence and Law
Towards formalising argumentation about legal cases
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Facilitating case comparison using value judgments and intermediate legal concepts
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Hi-index | 0.00 |
The Pierson vs. Post case [1] has become an important benchmark in the field of AI and Law for computational models of argumentation. In [2], Bench-Capon used Pierson vs. Post to motivate the use of values and value preferences in his theory-construction account of legal argument. And in a more a recent paper by Atkinson, Bench-Capon and McBurney [3], it was used to illustrate a formalization of an argumentation scheme for practical reasoning. Here we offer yet another reconstruction of Pierson vs. Post, using our Carneades Argumentation Framework, a formal mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation based on Walton's theory of argumentation [4], and compare it to this prior work. Carneades, named in honor of the Greek skeptic philosopher who emphasized the importance of plausible reasoning, applies proof standards [5] to determine the defensibility of arguments and the acceptability of statements on an issue-by-issue basis.