Context Graphs for Legal Reasoning and Argumentation

07/01/2020
by   Max Rapp, et al.
0

We propose a new, structured, logic-based framework for legal reasoning and argumentation: Instead of using a single, unstructured meaning space, theory graphs organize knowledge and inference into collections of modular meaning spaces organized by inheritance and interpretation. Context graphs extend theory graphs by attack relations and interpret theories as knowledge contexts of agents in argumentation. We introduce the context graph paradigm by modeling the well-studied case Popov v. Hayashi, concentrating on the role of analogical reasoning in context graphs.

READ FULL TEXT

page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

research
12/17/2016

A Comment on Argumentation

We use the theory of defaults and their meaning of [GS16] to develop (th...
research
09/07/2022

Legal Detection of AI Products Based on Formal Argumentation and Legal Ontology

Ontology is a popular method for knowledge representation in different d...
research
07/01/2021

Visualising Argumentation Graphs with Graph Embeddings and t-SNE

This paper applies t-SNE, a visualisation technique familiar from Deep N...
research
10/01/2022

Using Argumentation Schemes to Model Legal Reasoning

We present argumentation schemes to model reasoning with legal cases. We...
research
02/04/2014

Identifying the Class of Maxi-Consistent Operators in Argumentation

Dung's abstract argumentation theory can be seen as a general framework ...
research
05/26/2023

Argumentation Schemes for Blockchain Deanonymization

Cryptocurrency forensics became standard tools for law enforcement. Thei...
research
03/05/2019

Dealing with Qualitative and Quantitative Features in Legal Domains

In this work, we enrich a formalism for argumentation by including a for...

Please sign up or login with your details

Forgot password? Click here to reset