Formal and computational models of argument are ideally suited for education in ill-defined domains such as law, public policy, and science.  Open-ended arguments play a central role in these areas but students of the domains may not have been taught an explicit model of argument.  Computational models of argument may be ideally suited to act as argument tutors guiding students in the formation of arguments and argument analysis according to an explicit model.  In order to achieve this it is important to establish that the models can be understood and evaluated reliably, an empirical question.  In this paper we report ongoing work on the diagnostic utility of argument diagrams produced in the LARGO tutoring system.

International law is a singular exception to the top-down systems of law within nations. It presents the puzzle of how the law can be created or changed in the absence of authoritative rule-making institutions. The present paper is part of a work in progress that locates the law-making apparatus of international law in a complex adaptive system. Herein the focus is on thresholds. The first and most detailed threshold describes the emergence of the complex adaptive system. The second threshold consists of the transformation of international law from the voluntary to the automatic. The third threshold is here but has not yet been crossed: actualizing human rights as enforceable claims by individuals against States.

A state is not alive, yet it performs many of the central enjoys few bonds of kinship: and residence depends upon functions of life like replication and adaptation to new conditions occupational specialization rather than blood relations. A to balance social protection and opportunity. As a modern state can declare war on behalf of the entire collectivity, lifelike system the rise of the modern state raises four sets reserving the right to declare mandatory participation of fundamental questions about its evolutionary design. A and to contract the area of private vengeance. They proclaim first set concerns how it became a sustainable, autonomously a monopoly of force and of law, while requiring citizens to replicating system, capable of evolution. All non-state agglomerations forgo violence; vengeance is not the responsibility of the offended such as empires or chiefdoms eventually stagnate party. Almost any crime against one member is a because they are closed systems that break down over crime against the state. Subgroups seeking vengeance are time (Weber). A state is an open system that must able to viewed as threatening to the order of the state.

Recently, Argumentation Mechanism Design (ArgMD) was introduced as a new paradigm for studying argumentation among self-interested agents using game-theoretic techniques. Preliminary results showed a condition under which a direct mechanism based on Dung's grounded semantics is strategy-proof (i.e. truth enforcing). But these early results dealt with a highly restricted form of agent preferences, and assumed agents can only hide, but not lie about, arguments. In this paper, we characterise strategy-proofness under grounded semantics for a more realistic preference class (namely, focal arguments). We also provide the first analysis of the case where agents can lie.

Equilibrium or near-equilibrium solutions to very large extensive form games are often computed by using abstractions to reduce the game size. A common abstraction technique for games with a large number of available actions is to restrict the number of legal actions in every state. This method has been used to discover equilibrium solutions for the game of no-limit heads-up Texas Hold'em. When using a solution to an abstracted game to play one side in the un-abstracted (real) game, the real opponent actions may not correspond to actions in the abstracted game. The most popular method for handling this situation is to translate opponent actions in the real game to the closest legal actions in the abstracted game. We show that this approach can result in a very exploitable player and propose an alternative solution. We use probabilistic mapping to translate a real action into a probability distribution over actions, whose weights are determined by a similarity metric. We show that this approach significantly reduces the exploitability when using an abstract solution in the real game.

We propose an approach for automatically ranking structured documents applied to patent prior art search. Our model, SVM Patent Ranking (SVM_PR) incorporates margin constraints that directly capture the specificities of patent citation ranking. Our approach combines patent domain knowledge features with meta-score features from several different general Information Retrieval methods. The training algorithm is an extension of the Pegasos algorithm with performance guarantees, effectively handling hundreds of thousands of patent-pair judgements in a high dimensional feature space. Experiments on a homogeneous essential wireless patent dataset show that SVM_PR performs on average 30%-40% better than many other state-of-the-art general-purpose Information Retrieval methods in terms of the NDCG measure at different cut-off positions.

We present an unified methodology for representation and development of dialectical proof procedures in both abstract and assumption-based argumentation based on the notions of legal environments and dispute derivation. A legal environment specifies the legal moves of the dispute parties while a dispute derivation describes the procedure structure. A key insight of this paper is that the opponent moves determine the soundness of a dispute while its completeness depends on the proponent moves.

This paper discusses the state of the art in CBR ontologies from the perspective of one developing an improved system for case-based legal reasoning. The paper proposes three specific roles for a CBR ontology and illustrates them in the context of the intended output of the new system: a legal classroom discussion of how to decide a case featuring hypothetical reasoning and abstract analogies. The paper distills the ontological requirements for modeling the example’s case-based arguments and assesses whether current research can meet those requirements. The concrete example helps to focus on and define goals for improving CBR ontologies.

We present an approach to patent claim simplification which segments claim sentences into clausal discourse units, transforms them into complete sentences, establishes coreference relations and builds a discourse structure between discourse units. The four stages are necessary to allow for the syntactic analysis of otherwise unparsable claim sentences and their regeneration using discourse structure and coreference relations in order to ensure the production of a cohesive and coherent paraphrase/summary.

Adequate representation of natural language semantics requires access to vast amounts of common sense and domain-specific world knowledge. Prior work in the field was based on purely statistical techniques that did not make use of background knowledge, on limited lexicographic knowledge bases such as WordNet, or on huge manual efforts such as the CYC project. Here we propose a novel method, called Explicit Semantic Analysis (ESA), for fine-grained semantic interpretation of unrestricted natural language texts. Our method represents meaning in a high-dimensional space of concepts derived from Wikipedia, the largest encyclopedia in existence. We explicitly represent the meaning of any text in terms of Wikipedia-based concepts. We evaluate the effectiveness of our method on text categorization and on computing the degree of semantic relatedness between fragments of natural language text. Using ESA results in significant improvements over the previous state of the art in both tasks. Importantly, due to the use of natural concepts, the ESA model is easy to explain to human users.