Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Artificial Intelligence and Law
Erschienen in: Artificial Intelligence and Law 4/2022

08.08.2022

Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the second decade

verfasst von: Giovanni Sartor, Michał Araszkiewicz, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Tom van Engers, Enrico Francesconi, Henry Prakken, Giovanni Sileno, Frank Schilder, Adam Wyner, Trevor Bench-Capon

Erschienen in: Artificial Intelligence and Law | Ausgabe 4/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The first issue of Artificial Intelligence and Law journal was published in 1992. This paper provides commentaries on nine significant papers drawn from the Journal’s second decade. Four of the papers relate to reasoning with legal cases, introducing contextual considerations, predicting outcomes on the basis of natural language descriptions of the cases, comparing different ways of representing cases, and formalising precedential reasoning. One introduces a method of analysing arguments that was to become very widely used in AI and Law, namely argumentation schemes. Two relate to ontologies for the representation of legal concepts and two take advantage of the increasing availability of legal corpora in this decade, to automate document summarisation and for the mining of arguments.
Vorheriger Artikel Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the first decade
Nächster Artikel Correction: thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the second decade

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
See Sect. 6 of Villata et al. (2022), elsewhere in this issue.
 
2
See Sects. 6 and 7 of Governatori et al. (2022), elsewhere in this issue.
 
3
See Sect. 4 of Araszkiewicz et al. (2022), elsewhere in this issue, for a discussion of Walton’s papers in AI and Law journal and Atkinson et al. (2020a) for his overall influence on the field.
 
4
See Sect. 9 of Governatori et al. (2022).
 
5
See Sects. 6 and 7 of Governatori et al. (2022), elsewhere in this issue.
 
6
The other article on argumentation schemes that appeared in the same issue as Verheij (2003c) is Bex et al. (2003), which is discussed elsewhere in this issue (Villata et al. (2022), Sect. 3).
 
7
Several of these papers are discussed in Governatori et al. (2022), elsewhere in this issue.
 
8
Although many authors, including Walton, have claimed something like this (cf. e.g. Bex et al. (2003)), Walton himself never considered argumentation schemes as purely (domain-specific) rules, but rather as dialogical or dialectical devices, where the critical questions are a key component of the scheme. Cf. Atkinson and colleagues’ recent paper on the influence of Walton on AI and Law (Atkinson et al. 2020a). See also the discussion of Walton’s papers in Sect. 4 of Araszkiewicz et al. (2022), elsewhere in this issue.
 
9
This figure and the others in this section were made using Verheij’s argumentation software ArguMed based on DEFLOG, which is still available from his website https://​www.​ai.​rug.​nl/​~verheij/​aaa/​argumed3.​htm (last accessed 12-2-2022). See also (Verheij 2003a).
 
10
In formal argumentation, this notion of undercutting is now fairly standard, cf. (Prakken 2010).
 
11
In formal argumentation, such an attack on a premise is sometimes called undermining, and an argument that attacks the conclusion is called a rebutter (Prakken 2010).
 
12
For a discussion, see Sect. 3 of Araszkiewicz et al. (2022), elsewhere in this volume.
 
13
The paper appeared as part of a special issue on Ontologies for Law (Breuker et al. 2004), which indicates the great interest in the topic at the time. Elsewhere in this issue, Sect. 2 of Araszkiewicz et al. (2022) discusses the development of ontolgies in AI and Law over the decades.
 
14
This department, part of the Law faculty, has hosted for two decades a handful of researchers coming from Psychology, Legal studies, Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science. In 2017 its flag passed to the Leibniz Institute, spanning over the faculties of Law and Science of UvA, and TNO, the Dutch organization for applied research.
 
15
In terms of interest, today we live a similar heyday (Francesconi 2022), albeit very different approaches are being used: what is understood today by a general audience by the term Artificial Intelligence is most probably some machine-learning-based, data-driven approaches, whereas RegTech and similar technologies are much more related to distributed systems than normative systems research.
 
16
For instance, to accept that humans do not typically reflect on their conduct before taking decisions (e.g. the neurological evidence in Daniel (2002)) would map our view of the world to some form of emotional determinism, which would undermine many of the (fictional, possibly illusory) constructs that allow our societies to be maintained.
 
17
A more recent proposal in this direction is UFO-L (Griffo et al. 2016).
 
18
Furthermore, a general disillusionment emerged, even more in practical settings, towards semantic web technologies, for their inability to handle (normative) reasoning in a scalable way.
 
19
A number of criticisms have been put forward: e.g. Bench-Capon (2020) cites, as well as lack of explanations, the bias and mistakes present in past cases, the fact that the law may have evolved so that past decisions may have been made with different understandings of the law at different times, and the fact that the law is subject to change in the future. Medvedeva et al. (2020) shows that performance degrades as the dataset ages. Bex and Prakken (2021) demonstrate that it is not rational to follow predictions blindly, even given a high level of accuracy, and Steging et al. (2021) show that high accuracy can be achieved even when the underlying rationale is flawed. Many of these problems can be mitigated if the predictions are explainable, by giving a justification in legal terms, but this requires in principle some form of knowledge model.
 
21
The HOLJ corpus comprises 188 judgments from the years 2001–2003 from the House of Lords website. The authors extracted the judgements, removed the HTML tags, and assigned two types of label to each sentence: the rhetorical role and a relevance metric.
 
22
Data is not publicly available.
 
26
See Sect. 7 of Villata et al. (2022), elsewhere in this issue.
 
27
Google Scholar gives 419 citations to the paper. Date of access: 16 May 2022.
 
32
The case was the subject of a 2004 comic documentary film, Up For Grabs, https://​www.​imdb.​com/​title/​tt0420356/​.
 
33
See Sect. 6 of Villata et al. (2022), elsewhere in this issue.
 
34
See Governatori et al. (2022), Sect. 9, elsewhere in this issue.
 
Literatur
Agnoloni T, Barrera MF, Sagri MT, Tiscorni D, Venturi G (2009) When a framenet-style knowledge description meets an ontological characterization of fundamental legal concepts. In: Palmirani M, Pagallo U, Casanovas P, Sartor G (eds) AI approaches to the complexity of legal systems. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 93–112
Al-Abdulkarim L, Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2015) Factors, issues and values: revisiting reasoning with cases. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 3–12
Al-Abdulkarim L, Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2016) A methodology for designing systems to reason with legal cases using ADFs. Artif Intell Law 24(1):1–49CrossRef
Al-Abdulkarim L, Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, Whittle S, Williams R, Wolfenden C (2019) Noise induced hearing loss: building an application using the ANGELIC methodology. Argum Comput 10(1):5–22CrossRef
Aletras N, Tsarapatsanis D, Preoţiuc-Pietro D, Lampos V (2016) Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. PeerJ Comput Sci 2:e93CrossRef
Aleven V (2003) Using background knowledge in case-based legal reasoning: a computational model and an intelligent learning environment. Artif Intell 150(1–2):183–237MATHCrossRef
Aleven V, Ashley KD (1995) Doing things with factors. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 31–41
Alexander L (1989) Constrained by precedent. South Calif Law Rev 63:1
Allen LE, Saxon CS (1986) Analysis of the logical structure of legal rules by a modernized and formalized version of Hohfeld legal conceptions. In: Martino A, Natali F (eds) Automated analysis of legal texts. North Holland, Amsterdam
Allen LE, Saxon CS (1993) A-Hofeld: a language for robust structural representation of knowledge in the legal domain to build interpretation-assistance expert systems. In: Meyer J-J, Wieringa R (eds) Deontic logic in computer science: normative system specification. Chichester, Wiley, pp 205–224
Araszkiewicz M (2021) Critical questions to argumentation schemes in statutory interpretation. J Appl Log 8(1):291–320MATH
Araszkiewicz M, Bench-Capon T, Francesconi E, Lauritsen M, Rotolo A (2022) Thirty years of AI and law: overviews. Artif Intell Law 30(2):147–161
Ashley KD (1990) Modeling legal arguments: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. MIT Press, Cambridge
Ashley KD (2019) A brief history of the changing roles of case prediction in AI and law. Law Context Socio-Legal J 36:93CrossRef
Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S (2009) Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artif Intell Law 17(2):125–165CrossRef
Atkinson K (ed) (2012) Artificial intelligence and law: special issue on modelling Popov v Hayashi vol 20:1
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2021) Argumentation schemes in AI and Law. Argum Comput 12(3):417–434MATHCrossRef
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, McBurney P (2006) PARMENIDES: facilitating deliberation in democracies. Artif Intell Law 14(4):261–275CrossRef
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, Bex F, Gordon TF, Prakken H, Sartor G, Verheij B (2020) In memoriam Douglas N. Walton: the influence of Doug Walton on AI and Law. Artif Intell Law 28(3):281–326CrossRef
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, Bollegala D (2020b) Explanation in AI and law: past, present and future. Artif Intell, p 103387
Bench-Capon T (1989) Deep models, normative reasoning and legal expert systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 37–45
Bench-Capon T (1999) Some observations on modelling case based reasoning with formal argument models. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 36–42
Bench-Capon T (2002) The missing link revisited: the role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artif Intell Law 10(1):79–94CrossRef
Bench-Capon T (2012) Representing Popov v Hayashi with dimensions and factors. Artif Intell Law 20(1):15–35CrossRef
Bench-Capon T (2020) The need for Good Old Fashioned AI and Law. In: Hötzendorfer W, Tschohl C, Kummer F (eds) International trends in legal informatics: a Festschrift for Erich Schweighofer. Weblaw, Bern, pp 23–36
Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K (2018) Lessons from implementing factors with magnitude. In: Proceedings of Jurix-2018, pp 11–20. IOS
Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K (2021) Precedential constraint: the role of issues. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 12–21
Bench-Capon T, Modgil S (2009) Case law in extended argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 118–127
Bench-Capon T, Prakken H (2010) Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artif Intell Law 18(2):153–174CrossRef
Bench-Capon T, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1–2):97–143MATHCrossRef
Bench-Capon T, Coenen F, Orton P (1993) Argument-based explanation of the British Nationality Act as a logic program. Inf Commun Technol Law 2(1):53–66CrossRef
Bench-Capon T, Araszkiewicz M, Ashley K, Atkinson K, Bex F, Borges F, Bourcier D, Bourgine P, Conrad JG, Francesconi E et al (2012) A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and law. Artif Intell Law 20(3):215–319CrossRef
Berman DH, Hafner CL (1991) Incorporating procedural context into a model of case-based legal reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 12–20
Berman DH, Hafner CL (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: The missing link. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 50–59
Berman DH, Hafner CL (1995) Understanding precedents in a temporal context of evolving legal doctrine. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 42–51
Bex F (2011) Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: a formal hybrid theory. Springer, BerlinCrossRef
Bex F, Prakken H (2021) On the relevance of algorithmic decision predictors for judicial decision making. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 175–179
Bex F, Verheij B (2012) Solving a murder case by asking critical questions: an approach to fact-finding in terms of argumentation and story schemes. Argumentation 26(3):325–353CrossRef
Bex F, Verheij B (2013) Legal stories and the process of proof. Artif Intell Law 21(3):253–278CrossRef
Bex F, Prakken H, Reed C, Walton D (2003) Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artif Intell Law 11(2):125–165CrossRef
Bhattacharya P, Hiware K, Rajgaria S, Pochhi N, Ghosh K, Ghosh S (2019) A comparative study of summarization algorithms applied to legal case judgments. In: Advances in information retrieval—41st European conference on IR research, ECIR 2019, pp 413–428
Branting LK (1991) Reasoning with portions of precedents. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 145–154
Branting LK (1993) A computational model of ratio decidendi. Artif Intell Law 2(1):1–31CrossRef
Branting LK, Pfeifer C, Brown B, Ferro L, Aberdeen J, Weiss B, Pfaff M, Liao B (2021) Scalable and explainable legal prediction. Artif Intell Law 29(2):213–238CrossRef
Breuker J, Elhag A, Petkov E, Winkels R (2002) IT support for the judiciary: Use of ontologies in the e-court project. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on conceptual structures, integration and interfaces, pp 15–19
Breuker J, Hoekstra R et al. (2004a) Core concepts of law: taking common-sense seriously. In: Proceedings of formal ontologies in information systems, pp 210–221
Breuker J, Tiscornia D, Winkels R, Gangemi A (eds) (2004) Artificial intelligence and law: special issue on ontologies for law 12:4
Breuker J, Valente A, Winkels R (2004) Legal ontologies in knowledge engineering and information management. Artif Intell Law 12(4):241–277CrossRef
Brüninghaus S, Ashley KD (2003) Predicting outcomes of case based legal arguments. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 233–242
Chalkidis I, Fergadiotis M, Malakasiotis P, Aletras N, Androutsopoulos I (2020) Legal-bert: the muppets straight out of law school. arXiv preprint arXiv:​2010.​02559
Cheng J, Lapata M (2016) Neural summarization by extracting sentences and words. In: Proceedings of the 54th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Berlin, Germany, pp 484–494
Chorley A, Bench-Capon T (2005) An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application. Artif Intell Law 13(3):323–371
de Oliveira Lima JA, Griffo C, Almeida JPA, Guizzardi G, Aranha MI (2021) Casting the light of the Theory of Opposition onto Hohfeld’s fundamental legal concepts. Legal Theory, pp 1–34
Devlin J, Chang M-W, Lee K, Toutanova K (2019) BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In: Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, vol 1, pp 4171–4186
Dong G, Liu H (eds) (2018) Feature engineering for machine learning and data analytics. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Dung PM et al (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–357MathSciNetMATHCrossRef
de Vargas Feijo D, Moreira VP (2021) Improving abstractive summarization of legal rulings through textual entailment. Artificial Intelligence and law, pp1–23
Francesconi E (2014) A description logic framework for advanced accessing and reasoning over normative provisions. Artif Intell Law 22(3):291–311CrossRef
Francesconi E (2022) The winter, the summer and the summer dream of artificial intelligence in law. Artif Intell Law, pp 1–15
Gargett A, Firth R, Aletras N (2020) Legalops: a summarization corpus of legal opinions. In: IEEE international conference on big data 2020, pp 2117–2120
Gordon TF (2008) Constructing legal arguments with rules in the legal knowledge interchange format (LKIF). In: Computable models of the law. Springer, Berlin, pp 162–184
Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 137–146
Gordon TF, Walton D (2012) A Carneades reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi. Artif Intell Law 20(1):37–56CrossRef
Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10–15):875–896MathSciNetMATHCrossRef
Governatori G, Bench-Capon T, Verheij B, Araszkiewicz M, Francesconi E, Matthias G (2022) Thirty years of AI and law: the first decade. Artif Intell Law 30(4)
Grabmair M (2017) Predicting trade secret case outcomes using argument schemes and learned quantitative value effect tradeoffs. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 89–98
Grabmair M, Ashley KD (2011) Facilitating case comparison using value judgments and intermediate legal concepts. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 161–170
Greenwood K, Capon TB, McBurney P (2003) Towards a computational account of persuasion in law. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 22–31
Griffo C, Almeida JPA, Guizzardi G (2016) Legal relations in a core ontology of legal aspects based on Alexy’s theory of constitutional rights. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2016
Hachey B, Grover C (2006) Extractive summarisation of legal texts. Artif Intell Law 14(4):305–345CrossRef
Hafner CD, Berman DH (2002) The role of context in case-based legal reasoning: teleological, temporal, and procedural. Artif Intell Law 10(1):19–64CrossRef
Hage J (1997) Reasoning with rules: an essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRef
Hage J, Leenes R, Lodder AR (1993) Hard cases: a procedural approach. Artif Intell Law 2(2):113–167CrossRef
Hahn U, Oaksford M, Harris A (2013) Testimony and argument: a bayesian perspective. In: Bayesian argumentation. Springer, Berlin, pp 15–38
Henderson J, Bench-Capon T (2019) Describing the development of case law. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 32–41
Hoekstra R, Breuker J, Di Bello M, Boer A (2007) The LKIF core ontology of basic legal concepts. Proc LOAIT 07:43–63
Hohfeld WN (1913) Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law J 23(1):16–59CrossRef
Horty J (2017) Reasoning with dimensions and magnitudes. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law
Horty JF (2011) Rules and reasons in the theory of precedent. Leg Theory 10:1–33
Horty JF (2021) Modifying the reason model. Artif Intell Law 29:271–83CrossRef
Horty JF, Bench-Capon T (2012) A factor-based definition of precedential constraint. Artif Intell Law 20(2):181–214CrossRef
Ingolfo S, Siena A, Mylopoulos J, Susi A, Perini A (2013) Arguing regulatory compliance of software requirements. Data Knowl Eng 87:279–296CrossRef
Jo Y, Visser J, Reed C, Hovy EH (2019) A cascade model for proposition extraction in argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 6th workshop on argument mining, pp 11–24
Jones A, Parent X (2008) Normative-informational positions: a modal-logical approach. Artif Intell Law 16(1):7–23CrossRef
Jones A, Sergot M (1992) Deontic logic in the representation of law: towards a methodology. Artif Intell Law 1(1):45–64CrossRef
Kelsen H (1967) Pure theory of law. University of California Press, BerkeleyCrossRef
Lafferty JD, McCallum A, Pereira FCN (2001) Conditional random fields: probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on machine learning (ICML 2001), pp 282–289
Lawrence J, Reed C (2019) Argument mining: a survey. Comput Linguist 45(4):765–818CrossRef
Lewis M, Liu Y, Goyal N, Ghazvininejad M, Mohamed A, Levy O, Stoyanov V, Zettlemoyer L (2020) BART: denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In: Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, ACL 2020, pp 7871–7880
Lindahl L (1977) Position and change—a study in law and logic. Reidel, DordrechtCrossRef
Lippi M, Torroni P (2016) Argumentation mining: state of the art and emerging trends. ACM Trans Internet Technol 16(2):10:1-10:25CrossRef
Loui RP, Norman J (1995) Rationales and argument moves. Artif Intell Law 3(3):159–189CrossRef
Maranhão J, de Souza EG, Sartor G (2021) A dynamic model for balancing values. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 89–98
Marshall CC (1989) Representing the structure of a legal argument. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 121–127
McCarty LT (1986) Permissions and obligations: an informal introduction. In: Martino A, Socci F (eds) Automated analysis of legal texts. North Holland, Amsterdam
Medvedeva M, Vols M, Wieling M (2020) Using machine learning to predict decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Artif Intell Law 28(2):237–266CrossRef
Medvedeva M, Wieling M, Vols M (2022) Rethinking the field of automatic prediction of court decisions. Artif Intell Law, pp 1–18
Mochales R, Moens M-F (2011) Argumentation mining. Artif Intell Law 19(1):1–22CrossRef
Mumford J, Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2021) Explaining factor ascription. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2021. IOS Press, pp 191–196
Muthuri R, Boella G, Hulstijn J, Capecchi S, Humphreys L (2017) Compliance patterns: harnessing value modeling and legal interpretation to manage regulatory conversations. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on articial intelligence and law, pp 139–148
Nallapati R, Zhai F, Zhou B (2017) Summarunner: a recurrent neural network based sequence model for extractive summarization of documents. In: Proceedings of the 31st AAAI conference on artificial intelligence
Palau RM, Moens M-F (2008) Study on the structure of argumentation in case law. In: Proceedings of JURIX, pp 11–20
Pascucci M, Sileno G (2021) The search for symmetry in Hohfeldian modalities. In: International conference on theory and application of diagrams, pp 87–102
Peldszus A, Stede M (2013) From argument diagrams to argumentation mining in texts: a survey. Int J Cogn Inform Nat Intell 7(1):1–31CrossRef
Peldszus A, Stede M (2016) Rhetorical structure and argumentation structure in monologue text. In: Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on argument mining, pp 103–112
Prakken H (2002) An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artif Intell Law 10(1):113–133MATHCrossRef
Prakken H (2010) An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum Comput 1(2):93–124CrossRef
Prakken H (2012) Reconstructing Popov v. Hayashi in a framework for argumentation with structured arguments and Dungean semantics. Artif Intell Law 20(1):57–82CrossRef
Prakken H (2021) A formal analysis of some factor-and precedent-based accounts of precedential constraint. Artif Intell Law 29(4):559–585CrossRef
Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):331–368CrossRef
Prakken H, Sartor G (1998) Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artif Intell Law 6(2–4):231–287CrossRef
Prakken H, Reed C, Walton D (2005) Dialogues about the burden of proof. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 115–124
Prakken H, Wyner A, Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K (2015) A formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+. J Log Comput 25(5):1141–1166MathSciNetMATHCrossRef
Rahwan I, Reed C (2009) The Argument Interchange Format. In: Argumentation in artificial intelligence, pp 383–402. Springer
Raz J (1979) The authority of law: essays on law and morality. Clarendon, OxfordCrossRef
Reed C, Rowe G (2004) Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int J Artif Intell Tools 13(04):961–979CrossRef
Rigoni A (2015) An improved factor based approach to precedential constraint. Artif Intell Law 23(2):133–160CrossRef
Rigoni A (2018) Representing dimensions within the reason model of precedent. Artif Intell Law 26:1–22CrossRef
Rissland EL, Ashley KD (1987) A case-based system for Trade Secrets law. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 60–66
Rissland EL, Xu X (2011) Catching gray cygnets: an initial exploration. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 151–160
Ross A (1968) Directives and norms. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London
Saravanan M, Ravindran B (2010) Identification of rhetorical roles for segmentation and summarization of a legal judgment. Artif Intell Law 18(1):45–76CrossRef
Sartor G (2002) Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artif Intell Law 10(1):95–112CrossRef
Sartor G (2005) Legal reasonimg: a cognitive approach to law. Springer, Dordrecht
Sartor G (2006) Fundamental legal concepts: a formal and teleological characterisation. Artif Intell Law 14(1–2):101–142
Sartor G (2010) Doing justice to rights and values: teleological reasoning and proportionality. Artif Intell Law 18(2):175–215CrossRef
Schreiber G, Wielinga B, de Hoog R, Akkermans H, Van de Velde W (1994) Commonkads: a comprehensive methodology for KBS development. IEEE expert 9(6):28–37CrossRef
Searle JR (1969) Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
Sergot MJ (2013) Normative positions. In: Gabbay D, Horty J, Parent X, van der Meyden R, van der Torre L (eds) Handbook of deontic logic and normative systems. College Publications, Rickmansworth, pp 353–406MATH
Sileno G, Boer A, van Engers T (2015) Revisiting constitutive rules. In: 6th workshop on AI approaches to the complexity of legal systems, pp 39–55
Spaak T (1994) The concept of legal competence: an essay in conceptual analysis. Dartmouth Pub Co, Hanover, NH
Stede M, Schneider J (2018) Argumentation mining, synthesis lectures on human language technologies. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael
Steging C, Renooij S, Verheij B (2021) Discovering the rationale of decisions: towards a method for aligning learning and reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 235–239
Steinberger R, Pouliquen B, Widiger A, Ignat C, Erjavec T, Tufis D, Varga D (2006) The JRC-Acquis: a multilingual aligned parallel corpus with 20+ languages. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on language resources and evaluation, LREC 2006, pp 2142–2147
Şulea O-M, Zampieri M, Vela M, van Genabith J (2017) Predicting the law area and decisions of French Supreme Court cases. In: Proceedings of the international conference recent advances in natural language processing, RANLP 2017, pp 716–722
Tagarelli A, Simeri A (2021) Unsupervised law article mining based on deep pre-trained language representation models with application to the Italian Civil Code. Artif Intell Law, pp 1–57
Teufel S, Moens M (1997) Sentence extraction as a classification task. In: Proceedings of the ACL/EACL’97 workshop on intelligent scalable text summarization
Teufel S, Moens M (2002) Summarizing scientific articles: experiments with relevance and rhetorical status. Comput Linguist 28(4):409–445CrossRef
Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Tran V, Le Nguyen M, Tojo S, Satoh K (2020) Encoded summarization: summarizing documents into continuous vector space for legal case retrieval. Artif Intell Law 28(4):441–467CrossRef
Valente A (1995) Legal knowledge engineering: a modelling approach. IOS Press, AmsterdamMATH
Valente A, Breuker J, Brouwer B (1999) Legal modeling and automated reasoning with ON-LINE. Int J Hum Comput Stud 51(6):1079–1125CrossRef
Verheij B (2003) Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artif Intell 150(1–2):291–324CrossRef
Verheij B (2003) Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic. Artif Intell Law 11(2):167–195CrossRef
Verheij B (2016) Formalizing value-guided argumentation for ethical systems design. Artif Intell Law 24(4):387–407CrossRef
Villata S, Araszkiewicz M, Ashley K, Bench-Capon T, Branting LK, Conrad JG, Wyner A (2022) Thirty years of AI and Law: The third decade. Artif Intell Law 30(4)
Walton D (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York
Wegner DM (2002) The illusion of conscious will. Bradford Books, MIT Press. Cambridge, ISBN 9780262731621
Winkels R, Boer A, Hoekstra R (2002) Clime: lessons learned in legal information serving. In: ECAI, pp 230–234
Wolf T, Debut L, Sanh V, Chaumond J, Delangue C, Moi A, Cistac P, Rault T, Louf R, Funtowicz M et al (2020) Transformers: state-of-the-art natural language processing. In: Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations, pp 38–45
Wyner A, Hoekstra R (2012) A legal case OWL ontology with an instantiation of Popov v. Hayashi. Artif Intell Law 20(1):83–107CrossRef
Wyner A, Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K (2007) Arguments, values and baseballs: representation of Popov v. Hayashi. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2007, vol 165, pp 151–160
Wyner A, van Engers T, Hunter A (2016) Working on the argument pipeline: through flow issues between natural language argument, instantiated arguments, and argumentation frameworks. Argum Comput 7(1):69–89CrossRef
Yamada H, Teufel S, Tokunaga T (2019) Building a corpus of legal argumentation in Japanese judgement documents: towards structure-based summarisation. Artif Intell Law 27(2):141–170CrossRef
Zhang J, Zhao Y, Saleh M, Liu P (2020) PEGASUS: pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization. In: Proceedings of the 37th international conference on machine learning, pp 11328–11339
Zheng A, Casari A (2018) Feature engineering for machine learning: principles and techniques for data scientists. O’Reilly Press, Sebastopol
Zheng H, Grossi D, Verheij B (2021a) Hardness of case-based decisions: a formal theory. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 149–158
Zheng L, Guha N, Anderson BR, Henderson P, Ho DE (2021b) When does pretraining help? Assessing self-supervised learning for law and the CaseHOLD dataset of 53,000+ legal holdings. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 159–168
Zhong H, Guo Z, Tu C, Xiao C, Liu Z, Sun M (2018) Legal judgment prediction via topological learning. In: Proceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing
Metadaten
Titel
Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the second decade
verfasst von
Giovanni Sartor
Michał Araszkiewicz
Katie Atkinson
Floris Bex
Tom van Engers
Enrico Francesconi
Henry Prakken
Giovanni Sileno
Frank Schilder
Adam Wyner
Trevor Bench-Capon
Publikationsdatum
08.08.2022
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Artificial Intelligence and Law / Ausgabe 4/2022
Print ISSN: 0924-8463
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8382
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-022-09326-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2022

Artificial Intelligence and Law 4/2022 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: overviews

OriginalPaper

Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: Editor’s Introduction

OriginalPaper

Thirty years of artificial intelligence and law: the third decade

Review Article

Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the first decade

Correction

Correction: thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the second decade

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise