Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:51:10.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Probabilistic legal reasoning in CHRiSM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2013

JON SNEYERS ,
DANNY DE SCHREYE  and
THOM FRÜHWIRTH
JON SNEYERS
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven, Belgium (e-mail: [email protected])
DANNY DE SCHREYE
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven, Belgium (e-mail: [email protected])
THOM FRÜHWIRTH
Affiliation:
University of Ulm, Germany (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Riveret et al. have proposed a framework for probabilistic legal reasoning. Their goal is to determine the chance of winning a court case, given the probabilities of the judge accepting certain claimed facts and legal rules.

In this paper we tackle the same problem by defining and implementing a new formalism, called probabilistic argumentation logic, which can be seen as a probabilistic generalization of Nute's defeasible logic. Not only does this provide an automation of the — only hand-performed — computations in Riveret et al, it also provides a solution to one of their open problems: a method to determine the initial probabilities from a given body of precedents.

Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 13 , Special Issue 4-5: 29th International Conference on Logic Programming , July 2013 , pp. 769 - 781
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 [JON SNEYERS, DANNY DE SCHREYE and THOM FRÜHWIRTH] 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 2, 321–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frühwirth, T. 2009. Constraint Handling Rules. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frühwirth, T. and Raiser, F., Eds. 2011. Constraint Handling Rules: Compilation, Execution, and Analysis. BOD.Google Scholar
Kakas, A. C., Kowalski, R. A. and Toni, F. 1992. Abductive logic programming. Journal of logic and computation 2, 6, 719–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmig, A., Demoen, B., De Raedt, L. et al., 2011. On the implementation of the probabilistic logic programming language ProbLog. TPLP 11, 2–3, 235–262.Google Scholar
Nute, D. 2001. Defeasible logic: Theory, implementation, and applications. In Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Applications of Prolog (INAP 2001), 87–114.Google Scholar
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. 1997. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 1, 25–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riveret, R., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G., Prakken, H. and Roth, B. 2007. Success chances in argument games: a probabilistic approach to legal disputes. In JURIX, Vol. 165, 99–108.Google Scholar
Roth, B., Riveret, R., Rotolo, A. and Governatori, G. 2007. Strategic argumentation: a game theoretical investigation. In ICAIL. ACM, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, T. 2008. A glimpse of symbolic-statistical modeling by PRISM. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 31, 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneyers, J., De Schreye, D. and Frühwirth, T. 2013. CHRiSM and probabilistic argumentation logic. In CHR 2013, 10th International Workshop on Constraint Handling Rules.Google Scholar
Sneyers, J., Meert, W., Vennekens, J., Kameya, Y. and Sato, T. 2010. CHR(PRISM)-based probabilistic logic learning. TPLP 10, 4–6, 433–447.Google Scholar
Sneyers, J., Van Weert, P., Schrijvers, T. and De Koninck, L. 2010. As time goes by: Constraint Handling Rules. TPLP 10, 1, 1–47.Google Scholar
Vennekens, J., Verbaeten, S. and Bruynooghe, M. 2004. Logic programs with annotated disjunctions. In ICLP 2004, LNCS, vol. 3132. Springer, 431–445.Google Scholar