Edwina L. Rissland
ABSTRACT
In this paper we describe a system, called BankXX, which generates arguments by performing a heuristic best-first search of a highly interconnected network of legal knowledge. The legal knowledge includes cases represented from a variety of points of view—cases as collections of facts, cases as dimensionally-analyzed fact situations, cases as bundles of citations, and cases as prototypical factual scripts—as well as legal theories represented in terms of domain factors. BankXX performs its search for useful information using one of three evaluation functions encoded at different levels of abstraction: the domain level, an “argument-piece” level, and the overall argument level. Evaluation at the domain level uses easily accessible information about the nodes, such as their type; evaluation at the argument-piece level uses information about generally useful components of case-based argument, such as best cases and supporting legal theories; evaluation at the overall-argument level uses factors, called argument dimensions, which address the overall substance and quality of an argument, such as the centrality of its supporting cases or the success record of its best theory. BankXX is instantiated in the area of personal bankruptcy governed by Chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, which permits a debtor to be discharged from debts through completion of a court-approved payment plan. In particular, our system addresses the requirement that such Chapter 13 plans be “proposed in good faith.”
- Alvarado, S. J. (1990). Understanding Editorial Text: A Computer Model of Argument Comprehension. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ashley, K. D. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ashley, K. D. & Rissland, E. L. (1987). But, See, Accord: Generating Blue Book Citations in HYPO. Proceedings, The First International Conference on Ai and Law, 67-74. Boston, MA. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Barr, A., Feigenbaum, E. A. & Cohen, P. (1981). The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bhamagar, R. K. (1989). Construction of Preferred Causal Hypotheses for Reasoning with Uncertain Knowledge. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bing, J. (1987). Designing Text Retrieval Systems for "Conceptual Searching". The First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 43-51. Boston, MA. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Branting, L. K. (1991). Building Explanations from Rules and Structured Cases. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 797-837. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dick, J. P. (1987). Conceptual Retrieval and Case Law. Proceedings, The First international Conference on Artificial intelligence and Law, 106-114. Boston, MA. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Erman, L. D., Hayes-Roth, F., Lesser, V. R. & Reddy, D. R. (1980). The HEARSAY-II Speech Understanding System: Integrating Knowledge to Resolve Uncertainty. Computing Surveys, 12. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fikes, R. E., Hart, P. & Nilsson, N. J. (1972). Learning and executing generalized robot plans. Artificial Intelligence, 3, 251-288.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gordon, T. F. (1991). An abductive theory of legal issues. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35, 95-118. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Haf, ner, C. D. (1987). An information Retrieval System Based on a Computer Model of Legal Knowledge. Ph.D, Thesis, University of Michigan. Republished by UMI Research Press, Ann Arbor, MI (1981).Google Scholar
- Hafner, C. D. (1987). Conceptual Organization of Case Law Knowledge Bases. Proceedings, The First international Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 35-42. Boston, MA. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lehnert, W. (1981). Plot Units and Narrative Summarization. Cognitive Science, 5(4).Google Scholar
- Levi, E. H. (1949). An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- McCarty, L. T. & Sridharan, N. S. (1982). A Computational Theory of Legal Argument (LRP-TR-13). Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
- Nilason, N. (1980). Principles of Artificial Intelligence. Palo Alto, CA: Tioga Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
- Prakken, H. (1993). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Ph.D. Thesis, Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Rissland, E. L. & Skalak, D. B. (1991). CABARET: Rule interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 839-887. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rissland, E. L., Valcarce, E, M. & Ashley, K. D. (1984). Explaining and Arguing with Examples. AAAI.84, Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Austin, TX. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
- Rosch, E. & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7,573-605.Google Scholar
- Rose, D. E. & Belew, R. K. (1991). A Connectionist and Symbolic Hybrid for Improving Legal Research. International Journal of Man~Machine Studies, 35, 1-33. Google Scholar
- Shepard's. (1992). Shepard's Federal Citations. Colorado Springs, CO: Shepard's/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Skalak, D. B. & Rissland, E. L. (1992). Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law: An International Journal, 1, 3-48.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stucky, B. K. (1986). Understanding Legal Argument. Counselor Project Technical Memorandum 13. Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
- Sycara, K. P. (1989). Argumentation: Planning Other Agents' Plans. Proceedings, Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 517-523. Detroit, Mi. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
- Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- West. (1993). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- BankXX: a program to generate argument through case-base search
Recommendations
BankXX: Supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval
The BankXX system models the process of perusing and gathering information for argument as a heuristic best-first search for relevant cases, theories, and other domain-specific information. As BankXX searches its heterogeneous and highly interconnected ...
The use of legal software by non-lawyers and the perils of unauthorised practice of law charges in the United States: a review of Jayson Reynoso decision
This paper critically reviews the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit In re: Jayson Reynoso: Frankfort Digital Services et al., v. Sara L. Kistler, United States Trustee et al. (2007) 447 F.3d 1117. The appellants, who ...
Comments