Abstract
We present a novel activating approach to Argument Theory Change (ATC) for the study of the dynamics of the judicial process. ATC applies belief change concepts to dialectical argumentation for altering trees upon which the semantics for reasoning are defined. The activating approach to ATC considers the incorporation of arguments to define a revision operator for studying how to provoke change to the semantics’ outcome. Our objective is to contribute to the discussion of how to deal with circumstances of the judicial process like hypothetical reasoning for conducting investigations of a legal case, and for handling the dynamics of the judicial process. We finally observe the behavior of our proposal upon the sentences of two different real criminal procedures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Humanitarian effort to give second-chance to minor offenders instead of serving time in prison.
References
KR 2014, Vienna, Austria, 2014. AAAI Press (2014)
IJCAI 2015, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2015. AAAI Press (2015)
Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symb. Logic 50, 510–530 (1985)
Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Simari, G.R. (eds.): Computational Models of Argument. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2010. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)
Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: AGM meets abstract argumentation: expansion and revision for dung frameworks. In: IJCAI 2015, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2015 [2], pp. 2734–2740
Bex, F., Verheij, B.: Legal shifts in the process of proof. In: Ashley, K.D., van Engers, T.M. (eds.) ICAIL 2011, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, pp. 11–20. ACM (2011)
Booth, R., Kaci, S., Rienstra, T., van der Torre, L.: A logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 148–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_12
Bulygin, E.: Sentencia Judicial y Creación de Derecho. La Ley 124, 355–369 (1966)
Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.-G., Marquis, P.: A translation-based approach for revision of argumentation frameworks. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8761, pp. 397–411. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_28
Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J., Marquis, P.: On the revision of argumentation systems: minimal change of arguments statuses. In: KR 2014, Vienna, Austria, 2014 [1]
CSJN: Góngora, Gabriel Arnaldo s/causa No. 14092 (2013). http://riom.jusbaires.gob.ar/sites/default/files/gongora_csjn.pdf
Diller, M., Haret, A., Linsbichler, T., Rümmele, S., Woltran, S.: An extension-based approach to belief revision in abstract argumentation. In: IJCAI 2015, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2015 [2], pp. 2926–2932
Doutre, S., Herzig, A., Perrussel, L.: A dynamic logic framework for abstract argumentation. In: KR 2014, Vienna, Austria, 2014 [1]
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming and \(n\)-person games. AIJ 77, 321–357 (1995)
García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. TPLP 4(1–2), 95–138 (2004)
Hansson, S.O.: A Textbook of Belief Dynamics: Theory Change and Database Updating. Springer, Dordrecht (1999)
Moguillansky, M.O.: A study of argument acceptability dynamics through core and remainder sets. In: Gyssens, M., Simari, G. (eds.) FoIKS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9616, pp. 3–23. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30024-5_1
Moguillansky, M.O., Rotstein, N.D., Falappa, M.A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Argument theory change through defeater activation. In: Baroni et al. [4], pp. 359–366
Moguillansky, M.O., Wassermann, R., Falappa, M.A.: Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory change. Logic J. IGPL 20(1), 154–186 (2012)
Rotstein, N., Moguillansky, M., Falappa, M., García, A., Simari, G.: Argument theory change: revision upon warrant. In: COMMA, pp. 336–347 (2008)
Rotstein, N.D., Moguillansky, M.O., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: A dynamic argumentation framework. In: Baroni et al. [4], pp. 427–438
SCBA: Cuchán, Pablo Victor (2007). http://www.scba.gov.ar/prensa/Noticias/17-07-07/Mat%F3.htm
Wyner, A., Bench-Capon, T.: Modelling judicial context in argumentation frameworks. In: COMMA, pp. 417–428 (2008)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Moguillansky, M.O., Simari, G.R. (2018). Dynamics of the Judicial Process by Defeater Activation. In: Pagallo, U., Palmirani, M., Casanovas, P., Sartor, G., Villata, S. (eds) AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems. AICOL AICOL AICOL AICOL AICOL 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10791. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00178-0_34
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00178-0_34
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00177-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00178-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)