Logic programming and burden of proof in legal reasoning. (English) Zbl 1298.68260

Summary: In legal reasoning, there are a lot of interesting problems related with techniques of informatics. We propose a research field called juris-informatics to hope that we could make a great success like bio-informatics to introduce various techniques of informatics into legal domain. In this paper, we show our contributions to apply logic programing to formalizing and implementing burden of proof in legal reasoning.


68T27 Logic in artificial intelligence
68N17 Logic programming
91F99 Other social and behavioral sciences (mathematical treatment)


Full Text: DOI


[1] Dung P.M.: ”On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming”. Proc. of IJCAI-93, 852–859 (1993)
[2] Dung P.M., Dung T.M.: ”A Unified Framework for Representation and Development of Dialectical Proof Procedures in Argumentation”. Proc. of IJCAI-09, 746–751 (2009)
[3] Garciá A.J., Simari G.R.: ”Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach”. TPLP 4(1-2), 95–138 (2004) · Zbl 1090.68015
[4] Gordon T.F., Prakken H., Walton D.: ”The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof”. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 875–896 (2007) · Zbl 1168.68566
[5] Ito, S., Basis of Ultimate Facts, Yuhikaku, 2001 (in Japanese).
[6] Ito, S., Lecture Series on Ultimate Facts, Shojihomu, 2008 (in Japanese).
[7] Kitamura, I., ”The Judiciary in Contemporary Society: Japan,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 00087254, Sprint93, 25, 2, 1993.
[8] Kurata, T., ”Shomei Sekininron,” Hanrei Times (2001), Japanese translation of ”Rosenberg, L., Die Beweislast auf der Grundlage des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs und der Zivilprozessordnung (1956).”
[9] Modgil, S., Caminada, M., ”Proof Theories and Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks,” Argumentation in AI (Rahwan, I. and Simari, G. R. eds.), Springer-Verlag, 2009.
[10] Prakken H.: ”Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure?”. Fundam. Inform. 48(2-3), 253–271 (2001) · Zbl 0995.03023
[11] Prakken H., Sartor G.: ”Presumptions and Burdens of Proof”. Proc. of JURIX 2006, 21–30 (2006)
[12] Prakken H., Sartor G.: ”Formalising Arguments about the Burden of Persuasion”. Proc. of ICAIL 2007, 97–106 (2007)
[13] Prakken H., Sartor G.: ”More on Presumptions and Burdens of Proof”. Proc. of JURIX 2008, 176–185 (2008)
[14] Satoh, K., Tojo, S., Suzuki, Y., ”Formalizing a Switch of Burden of Proof by Logic Programming,” Proc. of the 1st International Workshop on Juris-Informatics (JURISIN 2007), pp.76–85, 2007. ( http://research.nii.ac.jp/ksatoh/papers/jurisin2007.pdf )
[15] Satoh, K., ”Formalization of Burden of Proof and Its Surrounding Concepts by Logic Programming,” The University of Tokyo Law Review, 4, pp.46–57, 2009 (in Japanese).
[16] Satoh, K., ”A Formalization for Burden of Production in Logic Programming,” Proc. of the 3rd International Workshop on Juris-informatics (JURISIN 2009), pp.107–117, 2009.
[17] Satoh, K., Kubota, M., Nishigai, Y., Takano, C., ”Translating the Japanese Presupposed Ultimate Fact Theory into Logic Programming,” Proc. of JURIX 2009, pp.162–171, 2009.
[18] Satoh, K., Asai, K., Kogawa, T., Kubota, M., Nakamura, M., Nishigai, Y., Shirakawa, K., Takano, C., ”PROLEG: An Implementation of the Presupposed Ultimate Fact Theory of Japanese Civil Code by PROLOG Technology,” Proc. of the 4th International Workshop on Juris-informatics (JURISIN 2010), pp.29–40, 2010.
[19] Shindo, K., New Civil Procedure Law (Revised 3rd Edition), Kobundo publisher, 2005 (in Japanese).
[20] Yoshino, H., ”On the Logical Foundations of Compound Predicate Formulae for Legal Knowledge Representation,” Artificial Intelligence and Law, 5, 1-2, pp.77–96, Springer, 1997.
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.