research-article

Why lawyers are nice (or nasty): a game-theoretical argumentation exercise

Authors:

Eunate MayorAuthors Info & Claims

ICAIL '09: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Pages 108 - 117

https://doi.org/10.1145/1568234.1568247

Published: 08 June 2009 Publication History

Get Access

Abstract

This contribution introduces a novel approach to study legal interactions, legal professions, and legal institutions, by combining argumentation, game theory and evolution. We consider a population of lawyers, having different postures, who engage in adversarial argumentation with other lawyers, obtaining outcomes according the existing context and their chosen strategies. We examine the resulting games and analyse the evolution of the population.

References

[1]

P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77: 321--57, 1995.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[2]

Regis Riveret, Henry Prakken, Antonino Rotolo, and Giovanni Sartor. Heuristics in argumentation: A game-theoretical investigation. In Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA-08, Amsterdam, 2008. IOS.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[3]

Regis Riveret, Nino Rotolo, Giovanni Sartor, Henry Prakken, and Bram Roth. Success chances in argument games: A probabilistic approach to legal disputes. In Arno R. Lodder, editor, Proceeding of Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2007, pages 99--108. IOS, Amsterdam, 2007.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[4]

Michel Rudnianski. Deterrence typology and nuclear stability: A game theoretic approach. In Defence Decision Making, pages 137--68. Springer, Heidelberg, 1991.

Google Scholar

[5]

Jörgen Weibull. Evolutionary Game Theory. MIT, 1995.

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Governatori GRotolo ARiveret R(2018)A Deontic Argumentation Framework Based on Deontic Defeasible LogicPRIMA 2018: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-030-03098-8_33(484-492)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2018
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03098-8_33
Liebwald DFrancesconi EVerheij B(2013)Vagueness in lawProceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law10.1145/2514601.2514628(207-211)Online publication date: 10-Jun-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2514601.2514628
Sartor GRotolo A(2012)AI and LawAgreement Technologies10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3_13(199-207)Online publication date: 28-Nov-2012
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3_13
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Why lawyers are nice (or nasty): a game-theoretical argumentation exercise

Recommendations

Nice and Nasty Lawyers, is the Legal System to Blame?Agent-based simulation insights
Proceedings of the 2009 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2009: The Twenty-Second Annual Conference

This paper proposes a novel approach to study legal interactions. In particular, we focus on cases of medical liability and investigate the mechanisms governing legal litigations in different judicial environments. To do that, we use an agent-based ...
Classification and strategical issues of argumentation games on structured argumentation frameworks
AAMAS '10: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1 - Volume 1

This paper aims at giving a classification of argumentation games agents play within a multi-agent setting. We investigate different scenarios of such argumentation games that differ in the protocol used for argumentation, i.e. direct, synchronous, and ...
A near-optimal strategy for a heads-up no-limit Texas Hold'em poker tournament
AAMAS '07: Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems

We analyze a heads-up no-limit Texas Hold'em poker tournament with a fixed small blind of 300 chips, a fixed big blind of 600 chips and a total amount of 8000 chips on the table (until recently, these parameters defined the heads-up endgame of sit-n-go ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

ICAIL '09: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

June 2009

244 pages

ISBN:9781605585970

DOI:10.1145/1568234

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

SIGAI: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 08 June 2009

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Sixth Framework Programme

Conference

ICAIL '09

ICAIL '09: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

June 8 - 12, 2009

Barcelona, Spain

Acceptance Rates

ICAIL '09 Paper Acceptance Rate 22 of 58 submissions, 38%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

4
Total Citations
View Citations
167
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)3
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 16 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Governatori GRotolo ARiveret R(2018)A Deontic Argumentation Framework Based on Deontic Defeasible LogicPRIMA 2018: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-030-03098-8_33(484-492)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2018
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03098-8_33
Liebwald DFrancesconi EVerheij B(2013)Vagueness in lawProceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law10.1145/2514601.2514628(207-211)Online publication date: 10-Jun-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2514601.2514628
Sartor GRotolo A(2012)AI and LawAgreement Technologies10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3_13(199-207)Online publication date: 28-Nov-2012
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3_13
Vreeswijk G(2010)Lower Bounds on Argument Verification in Computational DialecticProceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 201010.5555/1860828.1860872(463-474)Online publication date: 5-Aug-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1860828.1860872

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Nice and Nasty Lawyers, is the Legal System to Blame?Agent-based simulation insights

Classification and strategical issues of argumentation games on structured argumentation frameworks

A near-optimal strategy for a heads-up no-limit Texas Hold'em poker tournament