Dispute resolution in legal mediation with quantitative argumentation
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16854v1
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 12:05:46 GMT
- Title: Dispute resolution in legal mediation with quantitative argumentation
- Authors: Xiao Chi,
- Abstract summary: We introduce a QuAM framework, which integrates the parties' knowledge and the mediator's knowledge, including facts and legal norms, when determining the acceptability of a mediation goal.
We also develop a new formalism to model the relationship between the acceptability of a goal argument and the values assigned to a variable associated with the argument.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Mediation is often treated as an extension of negotiation, without taking into account the unique role that norms and facts play in legal mediation. Additionally, current approaches for updating argument acceptability in response to changing variables frequently require the introduction of new arguments or the removal of existing ones, which can be inefficient and cumbersome in decision-making processes within legal disputes. In this paper, our contribution is two-fold. First, we introduce a QuAM (Quantitative Argumentation Mediate) framework, which integrates the parties' knowledge and the mediator's knowledge, including facts and legal norms, when determining the acceptability of a mediation goal. Second, we develop a new formalism to model the relationship between the acceptability of a goal argument and the values assigned to a variable associated with the argument. We use a real-world legal mediation as a running example to illustrate our approach.
Related papers
- An action language-based formalisation of an abstract argumentation framework [2.6988814189407937]
We propose a new framework for modelling abstract argumentation graphs.
By taking the order of enunciation into account, we have the means to deduce a unique outcome for each dialogue.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-29T09:24:29Z) - Towards Supporting Legal Argumentation with NLP: Is More Data Really All You Need? [1.6311895940869516]
Legal reasoning and argumentation justifying decisions in cases has always been central to AI & Law.
Recent developments in legal NLP have increasingly focused on statistically classifying legal conclusions from text.
This paper reviews both traditional symbolic works in AI & Law and recent advances in legal NLP.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-16T15:15:44Z) - DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval.
We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability.
Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z) - Longitudinal Counterfactuals: Constraints and Opportunities [59.11233767208572]
We propose using longitudinal data to assess and improve plausibility in counterfactuals.
We develop a metric that compares longitudinal differences to counterfactual differences, allowing us to evaluate how similar a counterfactual is to prior observed changes.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-29T20:17:08Z) - Discovering Significant Topics from Legal Decisions with Selective
Inference [0.0]
We propose and evaluate an automated pipeline for discovering significant topics from legal decision texts.
The method identifies case topics significantly correlated with outcomes, topic-word distributions and case-topic weights.
We show that topics derived by the pipeline are consistent with legal doctrines in both areas and can be useful in other related legal analysis tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-02T07:00:24Z) - A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way.
Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z) - Fair Enough: Standardizing Evaluation and Model Selection for Fairness
Research in NLP [64.45845091719002]
Modern NLP systems exhibit a range of biases, which a growing literature on model debiasing attempts to correct.
This paper seeks to clarify the current situation and plot a course for meaningful progress in fair learning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-11T14:54:00Z) - Exploring the Trade-off between Plausibility, Change Intensity and
Adversarial Power in Counterfactual Explanations using Multi-objective
Optimization [73.89239820192894]
We argue that automated counterfactual generation should regard several aspects of the produced adversarial instances.
We present a novel framework for the generation of counterfactual examples.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-20T15:02:53Z) - The Long Arc of Fairness: Formalisations and Ethical Discourse [0.0]
We argue that the relations between technical (formalised) and ethical discourse on fairness are not always clear and productive.
We introduce dynamic fairness modelling, a more comprehensive approach that realigns formal fairness metrics with arguments from the ethical discourse.
By contextualising these elements of fairness-related processes, dynamic fairness modelling explicates formerly latent ethical aspects.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-03-08T09:54:59Z) - Towards Fair Knowledge Transfer for Imbalanced Domain Adaptation [61.317911756566126]
We propose a Towards Fair Knowledge Transfer framework to handle the fairness challenge in imbalanced cross-domain learning.
Specifically, a novel cross-domain mixup generation is exploited to augment the minority source set with target information to enhance fairness.
Our model significantly improves over 20% on two benchmarks in terms of the overall accuracy.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-23T06:29:09Z)
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.