Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Burden of proof in dialogue games and Dutch civil procedure
Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Dialogues about the burden of proof
ICAIL '05 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof
Artificial Intelligence
Presumptions and Burdens of Proof
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference
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
Justifying Actions by Accruing Arguments
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure?
Fundamenta Informaticae - Deontic Logic in Computer Science
A dialogical theory of presumption
Artificial Intelligence and Law
A formal model of adjudication dialogues
Artificial Intelligence and Law
An Asymmetric Protocol for Argumentation Games in Defeasible Logic
Agent Computing and Multi-Agent Systems
Formalising ordinary legal disputes: a case study
Artificial Intelligence and Law
More on Presumptions and Burdens of Proof
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference
Legal rules and argumentation in a metalogic framework
Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference
Computer Intelligent Support for the ADR/ODR Domain
Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference
A Common Framework for Board Games and Argumentation Games
Proceedings of the 2009 conference on Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases XX
Translating the Japanese Presupposed Ultimate Fact Theory into Logic Programming
Proceedings of the 2009 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2009: The Twenty-Second Annual Conference
Dialogue games in defeasible logic
AI'07 Proceedings of the 20th Australian joint conference on Advances in artificial intelligence
Proceedings of the 2010 International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation
International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation
Types of Dialogue and Burdens of Proof
Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010
Knowledge representation and non-monotonic reasoning
A 25-year perspective on logic programming
Evaluating cases in legal disputes as rival theories
JSAI-isAI'09 Proceedings of the 2009 international conference on New frontiers in artificial intelligence
Burdens of Proof in Monological Argumentation
Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2010: The Twenty-Third Annual Conference
On the relationship between Carneades and Defeasible Logic
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Towards a dynamic metalogic implementation of legal argumentation
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
A dynamic metalogic argumentation framework implementation
RuleML'2011 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Rule-based reasoning, programming, and applications
Burden of proof in deliberation dialogs
ArgMAS'09 Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
JSAI-isAI'10 Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
Hi-index | 0.00 |
This paper presents an argument-based logic for reasoning about allocations of the burden of persuasion. The logic extends the system of Prakken (2001), which in turn modified the system of Prakken & Sartor (1996) with the possibility to distribute the burden of proof over both sides in an argument game. First the (2001) system is put in the context of a distinction of three types of proof burdens and it is argued that the proof burdens of that system are in fact burdens of persuasion. Then the (2001) system is modified to allow for defeasible reasoning about allocations of such burdens within the logic. The usefulness of the resulting system is illustrated with applications to real legal cases.