Abstract
Logic-based approaches to legal problem solving model the rule-governed nature of legal argumentation, justification, and other legal discourse but suffer from two key obstacles: the absence of efficient, scalable techniques for creating authoritative representations of legal texts as logical expressions; and the difficulty of evaluating legal terms and concepts in terms of the language of ordinary discourse. Data-centric techniques can be used to finesse the challenges of formalizing legal rules and matching legal predicates with the language of ordinary parlance by exploiting knowledge latent in legal corpora. However, these techniques typically are opaque and unable to support the rule-governed discourse needed for persuasive argumentation and justification. This paper distinguishes representative legal tasks to which each approach appears to be particularly well suited and proposes a hybrid model that exploits the complementarity of each.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
http://tech.law.stanford.edu/ [Accessed: 12 November 2016].
This many-to-many mapping is the result, at least in part, of the many pragmatic functions of natural languages beyond simply expressing propositional content.
For an example of an attempt to scale up formalization of legislation, see (van Engers and Nijssen 2014).
While there have been experiments in automating the extraction of predefined factors from curated collections, e.g., Brüninghaus and Ashley (2001), this work depended on a pre-existing set of factors manually engineered for each domain.
For a discussion of other approaches to open texture, see Bench-Capon and Visser (1997).
https://lexmachina.com/ [Accessed: 27 November 2016].
https://lexpredict.com/ [Accessed: 29 November 2016].
https://premonition.ai/ [Accessed: 27 November 2016].
https://www.legalrobot.com/ [Accessed: 2 December 2016].
https://casetext.com/ [Accessed: 2 December 2016].
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~treebank/home.html. The Penn Treebank Project annotates naturally-occurring text for linguistic structure.
https://lexmachina.com/ [Accessed: 27 November 2016].
See Prakken (2005) for a review of the history of argumentation schemes in automated legal reasoning.
References
Abood A, Feltenberger D (2016) Automated patent landscaping. In: Proceedings of the workshop on legal text, document, and corpus analytics (LTDCA-2016), pp 1–8. http://law-and-big-data.org/LTDCA_2016_Workshop_Report.pdf
Aletras N, Tsarapatsanis D, Preotiuc-Pietro D, Lampos V (2016) Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a natural language processing perspective. PeerJ CompSci. https://peerj.com/articles/cs-93/
Aleven V, Ashley K (1996) Doing things with factors. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European workshop on case-based reasoning (EWCR-96). Lausanne, Switzerland, pp 76–90
Allen L (1957) Symbolic logic: a razor-edged tool for drafting and interpreting legal documents. Yale Law Journal 66:833–879
Allen L (1982) Towards a normalized language to clarify the structure of legal discourse. In: Edited versions of selected papers from the international conference on logic, informatics, law, vol 2, pp 349–407. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam
Angwin J, Larson J, Mattu S, Kirchner L (2016) Machine bias: there’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. and it’s biased against blacks. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
Ashley K (1990) Modelling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. MIT Press, Cambridge
Bench-Capon T, Coenen F (1992) Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artif Intell Law 1(1):65–86
Bench-Capon T, Gordon TF (2009) Isomorphism and argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL ’09, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 11–20
Bench-Capon TJM, Visser PRS (1997) Open texture and ontologies in legal information systems. In: Proceedings of the eighth international workshop on database and expert systems applications, 1997. pp 192–197
Bommarito MJ, Katz D (2009) Properties of the United States code citation network. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1502927
Branting K (1998) Techniques for automated drafting of judicial documents. Int J Law Inf Technol 6(2):214–229
Branting LK (2000a) An advisory system for pro se protection order applicants. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 14(3): 357
Branting LK (2000b) Reasoning with rules and precedents: a computational model of legal analysis. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Branting LK (2016) Vocabulary reduction, text excision, and procedural-context features in judicial document analytics. In Proceedings of the workshop on legal text, document, and corpus analytics (LTDCA-2016), pp 30–36. http://law-and-big-data.org/LTDCA_2016_Workshop_Report.pdf
Branting LK, Conrad J, editors (2016). Legal text, document, and corpus analytics (LTDCA 2016) workshop report. http://law-and-big-data.org/LTDCA_2016_Workshop_Report.pdf
Branting LK, Lester J, Callaway C (1998) Automating judicial document drafting: a unification-based approach. Artif Intell Law 6(2–4):111–149
Brudney J, Ditslear C (2005) Canons of construction and the elusive quest for neutral reasoning. Vanderbilt Law Rev 58:1
Brügmann S, Bouayad-Agha N, Burga A, Carrascosa S, Ciaramella A, Ciaramella M, Codina-Filba J, Escorsa E, Judea A, Mille S, Mller A, Saggion H, Ziering P, Schtze H, Wanner L (2014) Towards content-oriented patent document processing: intelligent patent analysis and summarization. World Patent Inf 40:30–42
Brüninghaus S, Ashley K (2001) The role of information extraction for textual CBR. In: Aha D, Watson I (eds) Case-based reasoning research and development. Springer, Berlin, pp 74–89
Buabuchachart A, Metcalf K, Charness N, Morgenstern L (2013) Classification of regulatory paragraphs by discourse structure, reference structure, and regulation type. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference on legal knowledge-based systems JURIX, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Chandler SJ (2005) The network structure of supreme court jurisprudence. Technical report tech report no. 2005-W-01, University of Houston Law Center
Chouldechova A (2016) Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. In: Proceedings of fairness, accountability, and transparency in machine learning, New York University, New York, NY. arXiv:1610.07524
Dozier C, Kondadadi R, Light M, Vachher A, Veeramachaneni S, Wudali R (2010) Named entity recognition and resolution in legal text. Springer, Berlin
Goodman B, Flaxman S (2016) EU regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a “right to explanation”. In ICML workshop on human interpretability in machine learning. New York, NY
Goodman B, Flaxman S (2016) European union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a “right to explanation”. ArXiv e-prints
Gray G (1987) Reducing unintended ambiguity in statutes: an introduction to normalization of statutory drafting. Tenn Law Rev 54:433
Hemberg E, Rosen J, Warner G, Wijesinghe S, O’Reilly U.-M. (2015) Tax non-compliance detection using co-evolution of tax evasion risk and audit likelihood. In: Atkinson K, Sichelman T (eds) Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL-2015, San Diego, USA. ACM, pp 79–88
Hermens LA, Schlimmer JC (1994) A machine-learning apprentice for the completion of repetitive forms. IEEE Expert 9:28–33
Koniaris M, Anagnostopoulos I, Vassiliou Y (2015) Network analysis in the legal domain: a complex model for european union legal sources. CoRR, arXiv:abs/1501.05237
Konstas I, Lapata M (2013) Inducing document plans for concept-to-text generation. In: Conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP 2013), Seattle, USA
Lafferty J, McCallum A, Pereira F (2001) Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on machine learning (ICML 2001), pages 282–?289. Morgan Kaufmann
Lakoff G (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Lauritsen M, Gordon T (2009) Toward a general theory of document modeling. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL 2009). ACM, pp 202–211
Li J, Chen X, Hovy EH, Jurafsky D (2016) Visualizing and understanding neural models in NLP. In: NAACL HLT 2016, the 2016 conference of the north American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, San Diego California, USA, June 12–17, 2016, pp 681–691
Lindquist S, Cross F (2017) Statility, predictability and the rule of law: stare decisis as reciprocity. https://law.utexas.edu/conferences/measuring/The%20Papers/Rule%20of%20Law%20Conference.crosslindquist.pdf
Loftus EF, Wagenaar WA (1988) Lawyers’ predictions of success. Jurimetr J 29:437–453
McCarty L (1977) Reflections on “taxman”: an experiment in artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Harv Law Rev 90:837–893
Mehl L (1958) Automation in the legal world: from the machine processing of legal information to the “law machine”. In: Symposium on the mechanisation of the thought process
Meldman JA (1975) A preliminary study in computer-aided legal analysis. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mochales R, Moens M-F (2011) Argumentation mining. Artif Intell Law 19(1):1–22
Morgenstern L (2014) Toward automated international law compliance monitoring (tailcm). Technical report, LEIDOS, INC. AFRL-RI-RS-TR-2014-206
NAiL (2013). Workshop on network analysis in law. In: The 14th international conference on ai and law, held in conjunction with ICAIL 2013. http://www.leibnizcenter.org/~winkels/NAiL2013.html. Accessed 2 Dec 2016
NAiL 2 (2014). Second international workshop on network analysis in law. In: The 27th international conference on legal knowledge and information systems. Held in conjunction with JURIX 2014, 10–12 Dec 2014, Krakow, Poland. http://www.leibnizcenter.org/~winkels/NAiL2014.html. Accessed 2 Dec 2016
NAiL 3 (2015). Third international workshop on network analysis in law. In: The 28th international conference on legal knowledge and information systems, Held in conjunction with JURIX 2015. 9–11 December 2015, Braga, Portugal. http://www.leibnizcenter.org/~winkels/NAiL2015.html. Accessed 2 Dec 2016
Nay JJ (2016) Gov2vec: Learning distributed representations of institutions and their legal text. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on NLP and computational social science. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 49–54, Austin, Texas
Newell A, Shaw J, Simon H (1959) Report on a general problem-solving program. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information processing, pp 256–264
Oskamp A, Lauritsen M (2002) AI in law practice? So far, not much. Artif Intell Law 10:227–236
Peterson M, Waterman D (1985) Rule-based models of legal expertise. In: Walters C (ed) Computing power and legal reasoning. West Publishing Company, Minneapolis, pp 627–659
Pethe VP, Rippey CP, Kale LV (1989) A specialized expert system for judicial decision support. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on artificial intelligence and law. Vancouver, BC, pp 190–194
Prakken H (2005) AI & law, logic and argument schemes. Argumentation 19(3):303–320
Rissland E, Friedman MT (1995) Detcting change in legal concepts. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL 1995), College Park, MD, USA. ACM Press, pp 127–136
Rissland E, Skalak D (1991) Cabaret: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. Int J Man–Mach Stud 34(6):839–887
Rush AM, Chopra S, Weston J (2015) A neural attention model for abstractive sentence summarization. CoRR, arXiv:abs/1509.00685
Sadeghian A, Sundaram L, Wang D, Hamilton W, Branting K, Pfeifer C (2016). Semantic edge labeling over legal citation graphs. In: Proceedings of the workshop on legal text, document, and corpus analytics (LTDCA-2016), pp 70–75. http://law-and-big-data.org/LTDCA_2016_Workshop_Report.pdf
Sanders K (1994) CHIRON: Planning in an Open-Textured Domain. PhD thesis, Brown University
Savelka J, Ashley K (2016) Extracting case law sentences for argumentation about the meaning of statutory terms. In: Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on argument mining (ArgMining2016), Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics
Schild UJ (1998) Criminal sentencing and intelligent decision support. Artif Intell Law 6(2):151–202
Schwartz T, Berger M, Hernandez J (2015) A legal citation recommendation engine using topic modeling and semantic similarity. In: Law and big data workshop, 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law
Serban IV, Klinger T, Tesauro G, Talamadupula K, Zhou B, Bengio Y, Courville AC (2016) Multiresolution recurrent neural networks: an application to dialogue response generation. CoRR, arXiv:abs/1606.00776
Sergot MJ, Sadri F, Kowalski RA, Kriwaczek F, Hammond P, Cory HT (1986) The British Nationality Act as a logic program. Commun ACM 29(5):370–386
Sidhu D (2015) Moneyball sentencing. Boston Coll Law Rev 56(2):672–731
Surdeanu M, Nallapati R, Gregory G, Walker J, Manning C (2011) Risk analysis for intellectual property litigation. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, Pittsburgh, PA. ACM
Surdeanu M, Nallapati R, Manning C (2010) Legal claim identification: information extraction with hierarchically labeled data. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on language resources and evaluation. LREC
Tata C (1998) ‘Neutrality’, ‘choice’, and ‘ownership’ in the construction, use, and adaptation of judicial decision support systems. Int J Law Inf Technol 6(2):143–166
van Engers T, Nijssen S (2014) From legislation towards the provision of services - an approach to agile implementation of legislation. Lecture notes in computer science, pp 163–172
Vilain M (2016) Language-processing methods for us court filings. In: Proceedings of the workshop on legal text, document, and corpus analytics (LTDCA-2016), pp 81–90. http://law-and-big-data.org/LTDCA_2016_Workshop_Report.pdf
Walker V, Vazirova K, Sanford C (2014) Annotating patterns of reasoning about medical theories of causation in vaccine cases: toward a type system for arguments. In: Proceedings of the 1st workshop on argumentation mining, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 1–10
Wyner A, Mochales Palau R, Moens M-F, Milward D (2010) Approaches to text mining arguments from legal cases. In: Francesconi E, Montemagni S, Peters W, Tiscornia D (eds) Semantic processing of legal texts. LNCS (LNAI), vol 6036, pp 60–79. Springer, Heidelberg
Wyner A, Peters W (2011) On rule extraction from regulations. Front Artif Intell Appl 235:113–122
Acknowledgements
The MITRE Corporation is a not-for-profit Federally Funded Research and Development Center chartered in the public interest. This document is approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited, Case Number 16-4565 ©2016 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Branting, L.K. Data-centric and logic-based models for automated legal problem solving. Artif Intell Law 25, 5–27 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9193-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9193-x