Explainable Automated Reasoning in Law using Probabilistic Epistemic Argumentation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.05815v1
• Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 15:40:42 GMT
• Title: Explainable Automated Reasoning in Law using Probabilistic Epistemic Argumentation
• Authors: Inga Ibs and Nico Potyka
• Abstract summary: We introduce a general scheme to model legal cases as probabilistic argumentation problems. We show how evidence can be modeled and sketch how explanations for legal decisions can be generated automatically. Our framework is easily interpretable, can deal with cyclic structures and guarantees imprecise-time probabilistic reasoning in the worst-case.
• Score: 6.85316573653194
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Applying automated reasoning tools for decision support and analysis in law has the potential to make court decisions more transparent and objective. Since there is often uncertainty about the accuracy and relevance of evidence, non-classical reasoning approaches are required. Here, we investigate probabilistic epistemic argumentation as a tool for automated reasoning about legal cases. We introduce a general scheme to model legal cases as probabilistic epistemic argumentation problems, explain how evidence can be modeled and sketch how explanations for legal decisions can be generated automatically. Our framework is easily interpretable, can deal with cyclic structures and imprecise probabilities and guarantees polynomial-time probabilistic reasoning in the worst-case.

Related papers

• Towards Generalizable Reasoning: Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization for LLM Reasoning [50.352417879912515]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at complex tasks with advances in reasoning capabilities.<n>We propose Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization to explicitly train LLMs to learn generalizable reasoning patterns.<n>We then construct token-level advantages from this reward and optimize the policy, encouraging LLMs to favor reasoning patterns that are process-valid and counterfactually robust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T08:03:11Z)
• Thinking Longer, Not Always Smarter: Evaluating LLM Capabilities in Hierarchical Legal Reasoning [11.255428720705204]
  We propose a framework that decomposes the process of identifying significant distinctions between cases into three-stage reasoning tasks.<n>Our framework models cases using factual predicates called factors, organizes them into a legal knowledge hierarchy, and defines verifiable rules for identifying distinctions.<n>We find that models consistently expend more computational resources on incorrect responses than correct ones, suggesting that "thinking longer" does not always mean "thinking smarter"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T18:15:28Z)
• Automatic coherence-driven inference on arguments [1.1929584800629671]
  Large language models (LLMs) can accurately extract propositions from arguments and compile them into natural data structures.<n>This neurosymbolic architecture naturally separates concerns and enables meaningful judgments about the coherence of arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-23T01:40:14Z)
• GLARE: Agentic Reasoning for Legal Judgment Prediction [60.13483016810707]
  Legal judgment prediction (LJP) has become increasingly important in the legal field.<n>Existing large language models (LLMs) have significant problems of insufficient reasoning due to a lack of legal knowledge.<n>We introduce GLARE, an agentic legal reasoning framework that dynamically acquires key legal knowledge by invoking different modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T13:38:12Z)
• Reasoning is about giving reasons [55.56111618153049]
  We show that we can identify and extract the logical structure of natural language arguments in three popular reasoning datasets with high accuracies.<n>Our approach supports all forms of reasoning that depend on the logical structure of the natural language argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-20T07:26:53Z)
• Counterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in Abstract Argumentation: Formal Foundations, Complexity and Computation [19.799266797193344]
  Argumentation-based systems often lack explainability while supporting decision-making processes. Counterfactual and semifactual explanations are interpretability techniques. We show that counterfactual and semifactual queries can be encoded in weak-constrained Argumentation Framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T07:27:27Z)
• Explaining Explanations in Probabilistic Logic Programming [0.0]
  In most approaches, the system is considered a black box, making it difficult to generate appropriate explanations. We consider a setting where models are transparent: probabilistic logic programming (PLP), a paradigm that combines logic programming for knowledge representation and probability to model uncertainty. We present in this paper an approach to explaining explanations which is based on defining a new query-driven inference mechanism for PLP where proofs are labeled with "choice expressions", a compact and easy to manipulate representation for sets of choices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T14:27:37Z)
• Automated legal reasoning with discretion to act using s(LAW) [0.294944680995069]
  ethical and legal concerns make it necessary for automated reasoners to justify in human-understandable terms. We propose to use s(CASP), a top-down execution model for predicate ASP, to model vague concepts following a set of patterns. We have implemented a framework, called s(LAW), to model, reason, and justify the applicable legislation and validate it by translating (and benchmarking) a representative use case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-25T21:11:08Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)
• A Semantic Approach to Decidability in Epistemic Planning (Extended Version) [72.77805489645604]
  We use a novel semantic approach to achieve decidability. Specifically, we augment the logic of knowledge S5$_n$ and with an interaction axiom called (knowledge) commutativity. We prove that our framework admits a finitary non-fixpoint characterization of common knowledge, which is of independent interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T11:26:26Z)
• Many-valued Argumentation, Conditionals and a Probabilistic Semantics for Gradual Argumentation [3.9571744700171743]
  We propose a general approach to define a many-valued preferential interpretation of gradual argumentation semantics. As a proof of concept, in the finitely-valued case, an Answer set Programming approach is proposed for conditional reasoning. The paper also develops and discusses a probabilistic semantics for gradual argumentation, which builds on the many-valued conditional semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-14T22:10:46Z)
• MetaLogic: Logical Reasoning Explanations with Fine-Grained Structure [129.8481568648651]
  We propose a benchmark to investigate models' logical reasoning capabilities in complex real-life scenarios. Based on the multi-hop chain of reasoning, the explanation form includes three main components. We evaluate the current best models' performance on this new explanation form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-22T16:01:13Z)
• Probabilistic Deduction: an Approach to Probabilistic Structured Argumentation [1.027974860479791]
  Probabilistic Deduction (PD) is an approach to probabilistic structured argumentation. PD provides a framework to unify probabilistic reasoning with argumentative reasoning. This is the first work in probabilistic structured argumentation where the joint distribution is not assumed form external sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-01T03:58:38Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)
• Logical Credal Networks [87.25387518070411]
  This paper introduces Logical Credal Networks, an expressive probabilistic logic that generalizes many prior models that combine logic and probability. We investigate its performance on maximum a posteriori inference tasks, including solving Mastermind games with uncertainty and detecting credit card fraud.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-25T00:00:47Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.