Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 1, Issue 2–3, pp 113–208

Case-based reasoning and its implications for legal expert systems

  • Kevin D. Ashley
Article

Abstract

Reasoners compare problems to prior cases to draw conclusions about a problem and guide decision making. All Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) employs some methods for generalizing from cases to support indexing and relevance assessment and evidences two basic inference methods: constraining search by tracing a solution from a past case or evaluating a case by comparing it to past cases. Across domains and tasks, however, humans reason with cases in subtly different ways evidencing different mixes of and mechanisms for these components.

In recent CBR research in Artificial Intelligence (AI), five paradigmatic approaches have emerged: statistically-oriented, model-based, planning/design-oriented, exemplar-based, and adversarial or precedent-based. The paradigms differ in the assumptions they make about domain models, the extent to which they support symbolic case comparison, and the kinds of inferences for which they employ cases.

Reasoning with cases is important in legal practice of all kinds, and legal practice involves a wide variety of case-based tasks and methods. The paradigms' respective benefits and costs suggest different approaches for different legal tasks.

CBR research and development in the field of AI and Law should be pursued vigoriously for several reasons. CBR can supplement rule-based expert systems, improving their abilities to reason about statutory predicates, solve problems efficiently, and explain their results. CBR can also contribute to the design of intelligent legal data retrieval systems and improve legal document assembly programs. Finally, in cognitive studies of various fields, it can model methods of transforming ill-structured problems into better structured ones through the use of case comparisons.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aleven, V. & Ashley, K. D. 1992. Automated Generation of Examples for a Tutorial in Case-Based Argumentation. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Montreal.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, L. E. & Engholm, C. R. 1978. Normalized Legal Drafting and the Query Method. Journal of Legal Education 29:380–412.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, L. E. & Saxon, C. S. 1987. Some Problems in Designing Expert Systems to Aid Legal Reasoning. In First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 94–103, Northeastern University, Boston.Google Scholar
  4. Ashley, K. D. & Aleven, V. 1991. Toward an Intelligent Tutoring System for Teaching Law Students to Argue with Cases. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Articial Intelligence and Law, 42–52, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  5. Ashley, K. D. & Aleven, V. 1992. Generating Dialectical Examples Automatically. In Proceedings AAAI-92. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
  6. Ashley, K. D. & Rissland, E. L. 1987. Compare and Contrast, A Test of Expertise. In Proceedings AAAI-87. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Seattle.Google Scholar
  7. Ashley, K. D. & Rissland, E. L. 1988. A Case-Based Approach to Modeling Legal Expertise. IEEE Expert. Vol. 3, Nr. 3.Google Scholar
  8. Ashley, K. D. & Rissland, E. L. 1988. Waiting on Weighting: A Symbolic Least Commitment Approach. In Proceedings AAAI-88. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, St. Paul.Google Scholar
  9. Ashley, K. D. 1989. Defining Salience in Case-Based Arguments. In Proceedings IJCAI-89. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit.Google Scholar
  10. Ashley, K. D. 1990. Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MIT Press, Cambridge. Based on Ashley's 1987 PhD. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, COINS Technical Report No. 88–01.Google Scholar
  11. Ashley, K. D. 1991. Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals in HYPO. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34 (6):753–796.Google Scholar
  12. Bareiss, E. R., Porter, B. W. & Wier, C. C. 1988. Protos: An Exemplar-Based Learning Apprentice. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 29:549–561.Google Scholar
  13. Bareiss, E. R., Porter, B. W. & Murray, K. S. 1989. Supporting Start-to-Finish Development of Knowledge Bases. Machine Learning 4:259–283.Google Scholar
  14. Bareiss, E. R. 1988. Exemplar-Based Knowledge Acquisition — A Unified Approach to Concept Representation, Classification, and Learning. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Based on PhD thesis, University of Texas.Google Scholar
  15. Barletta, R. & Mark, W. 1988. Explanation-Based Indexing of Cases. In Proceedings of the Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, 50–60, Clearwater Beach, FL. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency — Information Science and Technology Office.Google Scholar
  16. Beauchamp, T. & McCullough, B. 1984. Medical Ethics: The Moral Responsibilities of Physicians. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  17. Bellairs, K. 1989. Contextual Relevance in Analogical Reasoning: A Model of Legal Argument. PhD thesis, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  18. Berman, D. H. & Hafner, C. 1986. Obstacles to the Development of Logic-Based Models of Legal Reasoning. In Charles Walter (ed.), Computer Power and Legal Language, 185–214. New York: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  19. Berman, D. H. & Hafner, C. D. 1991. Incorporating Procedural Context into a Model of Case-Based Legal Reasoning. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12–20, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  20. Blair, D. C. & Maron, M. E. 1985. An Evaluation of Retrieval Effectiveness for a Full-Text Document-Retrieval System. Communications of the ACM 28(3): 289–299.Google Scholar
  21. Branting, L. K. & Porter, B. W. 1991. Rules and Precedents as Complementary Warrants. In Proceedings AAAI-91, 3–9. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Anaheim.Google Scholar
  22. Branting, L. K. 1991. Building Explanations from Rules and Structured Cases. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(6): 797–837.Google Scholar
  23. Branting, L. K. 1991. Integrating Rules and Precedents for Classification and Explanation: Automating Legal Analysis. PhD thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Technical Report No. A190-146.Google Scholar
  24. Buchanan, B. G. & Headrick, T. E. 1970. Some Speculation about Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning. Stanford Law Review 23: 40–62.Google Scholar
  25. Burton, S. J. 1985. An Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning. Little, Brown, Boston.Google Scholar
  26. Capper, P. N. & Susskind, R. E. 1988. Latent Damage Law — The Expert System. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  27. Carbonell, J. & Veloso, M. 1988. Integrating Derivational Analogy into a General Problem Solving Architecture. In Proceedings of the Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, Clearwater Beach, FL. DARPA/ISTO.Google Scholar
  28. Carbonell, J. G. 1983. Derivational Analogy and Its Role in Problem Solving. In Proceedings AAAI-83, Washington, DC. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  29. Clancey, W. J. 1983. The epistemology of a rule-based expert system: A framework for explanation. Artificial Intelligence 20: 215–251. Reprinted in: Buchanan B. G. & Shortliffe E. H. (eds.), Rule-Based Expert Systems; The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project.Google Scholar
  30. Collins, A. & Stevens, A. L. 1982. Goals and Strategies of Inquiry Teachers. In Robert Glaser, editor, Advances in Instructional Psychology, Volume 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Domeshek, E. A. 1991. Indexing Stories as Social Advice. In Proceedings AAAI-91, 16–21. Anaheim: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  32. Dworkin, R. 1978. No Right Answer? New York University Law Review 53:1–32.Google Scholar
  33. Eisenberg, T. & Henderson, Jr., J. A. 1992. Inside the Quiet Revolution in Products Liability. UCLA Law Review 39: 731.Google Scholar
  34. Ernst, G. W. & Newell, A. 1969. GPS: A Case Study in Generality and Problem Solving. New York: Academic Press, ACM Monograph Series.Google Scholar
  35. Gansler, J. S. 1991. Acquisition of High Technology Equipment: An Application for Case-Based Reasoning. Address presented at DARPA Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  36. Gardner, A. vdL. 1987. An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Golding, A. R. & Rosenbloom, P. S., 1991. Improving Rule-Based Systems through Case-Based Reasoning. In Proceedings AAAI-91, 22–27. Anaheim: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  38. Greenleaf, G., Mowbray, A. & Tyree, A. 1991. The DataLex Legal Workstation — Integrating Tools for Lawyers. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 215–224, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  39. Hammond, K. J. 1986. CHEF: A Model of Case-based Planning. In Proceedings AAAI-86, 267–271.Philadelphia: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  40. Hammond, K. J. 1986. Learning to Anticipate and Avoid Planning Problems through the Explanation of Failures. In Proceedings AAAI-86, 556–560. Philadelphia: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  41. Hammond, K. J. 1987. Explaining and Repairing Plans That Fail. In Proceedings IJCAI-87. Milan: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  42. Hammond, K. J. 1989. Case-Based Planning — Viewing Planning as a Memory Task. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  43. Henderson, J. A. Jr. & Eisenberg, T. 1990. The Quiet Revolution in Products Liability: An Empirical Study of Legal Change. UCLA Law Review 37:479.Google Scholar
  44. Henrion, M., Breese, J. S. & Horvitz, E. J. 1991. Decision Analysis and Expert Systems. AI Magazine 12(4): 64–91.Google Scholar
  45. Hinrichs, T. R. & Kolodner, J. L. 1991. The Roles of Adaptation in Case-Based Design. In Proceedings AAAI-91, 28–33. Anaheim: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  46. Jonsen, A. R. & Toulmin, S. 1988. The Abuse of Casuistry A History of Moral Reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kass, A. M. Leake, D. & Owens, C. C. 1986. Swale: A Program that Explains. In Roger C. Schanck, editor, Explanation Patterns: Understanding Mechanically and Creatively. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Kedar-Cabelli, S. 1984. Analogy with Purpose in Legal Reasoning from Precedents: A Dissertation Proposal. Technical Report LRP-TR-17, Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  49. Kolodner, J. L. Simpson, R. L. & Sycara-Cyranski, K. 1985. A Process Model of Case-Based Reasoning in Problem Solving. In Proceedings IJCAI-85, 284–290, Los Angeles: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  50. Kolodner, J. L. 1983. Maintaining Organization in a Dynamic Long-Term Memory. Cognitive Science 7(4): 243–280.Google Scholar
  51. Kolodner, J. L. 1983. Reconstructive Memory: A Computer Model. Cognitive Science, 7(4):281–328.Google Scholar
  52. Koton, P. 1988. Reasoning about Evidence in Causal Explanations. In Proceedings of the Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, 260–270, Clearwater Beach, FL: DARPA/ISTO.Google Scholar
  53. Koton, P. 1988. Reasoning about Evidence in Causal Explanations. In Proceedings AAAI-88, 256–261. St. Paul, MN: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  54. Koton, P. 1988. Using Experience in Learning and Problem Solving. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  55. Kuhn, T.S. 1980. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Lakatos, I. 1976. Proofs and Refutations. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Leake, D. B. 1991. An Indexing Vocabulary for Case-Based Explanation. In Proceedings AAAI-91, 10–15. Anaheim: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  58. Lesgold, A. M., Bonar, J. G., Ivill, J. M. & Bowen, A. 1987. An intelligent tutoring system for electronics troubleshooting: DC-circuit understanding. Technical report, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  59. Levi, E. L. 1949. An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  60. Llewellyn, K. N. 1930. The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, 1960 edition.Google Scholar
  61. Llewellyn, K. N. 1938. On Our Case Law of Contract: Offer and Acceptance. Yale Law Journal 48: 1–36, 779–818.Google Scholar
  62. Llewellyn, K. N. 1989. The Case Law System in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Recent translation of Praejudizienrecht und Rechtssprechung in Amerika, 1933.Google Scholar
  63. MacGregor, R. M. 1988. A Deductive Pattern Matcher. In Proceedings AAAI-88, 403–408, Saint Paul, MN: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  64. Mark, W. & Schlossberg, J. 1990. A Design Memory Without Cases. In Proceedings of the Spring Symposium Series, 51–55. Palo Alto: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  65. Mark, W. S. 1989. Case-Based Reasoning for Autoclave Management. In Proceedings of the Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, 176–180, Pensacola Beach, FL: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency — Information Science and Technology Office.Google Scholar
  66. McCarty, L. T. & Sridharan, N. S. 1981. The Representation of an Evolving System of Legal Concepts: II. Prototypes and Deformations. In Proceedings IJCAI-81, Vancouver, BC: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  67. McCarty, L. T. & Sridharan, N. S. 1982. A Computational Theory of Legal Argument. Technical Report LRP-TR-13, Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  68. McCarty, L. T. 1980. A Computational Theory of Eisner v. Macomber. Technical Report LRP-TR-9, Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  69. McKeown, K. R., Wish, M. & Matthews, K. 1985. Tailoring Explanations for the User. In Proceedings IJCAI-85, Los Angeles: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  70. Miller, R. A., Schaffner K. F. & Meisel, A. 1985. Ethical and Legal Issues Related to the Use of Computer Programs in Clinical Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine 102(4): 529–536.Google Scholar
  71. Mital, V., Stylianou, A. & Johnson, L. 1991. Conceptual Information Retrieval in Litigation Support Systems. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law; 235–243, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  72. Moore, J. D. & Swartout, W. R. 1989. A Reactive Approach to Explanation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, MI. Reprinted as Tech. Rep. ISI/RS-89–239, Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey, CA.Google Scholar
  73. Moore, J. D. & Swartout, W. R. 1990. A Reactive Approach to Explanation: Taking the User's Feedback into Account. In Paris, C., Swartout, W. & Mann, W. (eds), Natural Language Generation in Artificial Intelligence and Computational Linguistics, 1–48. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  74. Moore, J. D. & Swartout, W. R. 1990. Pointing: A Way Toward Explanation Dialogue. In Proceedings AAAI-90, 457–464. Boston: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  75. Moore, A. 1989. Trial by Schema: Cognitive Filters in the Courtroom. UCLA Law Review 37:273.Google Scholar
  76. Neustadt, R. E. & May, E. R. 1986. Thinking in Time. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  77. Nimmer, R. & Krauthaus, P. A. 1986. Computer Error and User Liability Risk. Jurimetrics 26(2): 121–137.Google Scholar
  78. Owens, C. 1988. Domain-Independent Prototype Cases for Planning. In Proceedings of the Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, 302–311, Clearwater Beach, FL: DARPA/ISTO.Google Scholar
  79. Radin, M. 1933. Case Law and Stare Decisis. Columbia Law Review 33:199.Google Scholar
  80. Riesbeck, C. K. & Schank, R. C. 1989. Inside Case-Based Reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  81. Riloff, E. & Lehnert, W. 1992. Classifying Texts Using Relevancy Signatures. In Proceedings AAAI-92. San Jose, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  82. Rissland, E. L. & Ashley, K. D. 1986. Hypotheticals as Heuristic Device. In Proceedings AAAI-86. Philadelphia: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  83. Rissland, E. L. & Skalak, D. B. 1989. Combining Case-Based and Rule-Based Reasoning: A Heuristic Approach. In Proceedings IJCAI-89. Detroit: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  84. Rissland, E. L. & Skalak, D. B. 1991. CABARET: Rule Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(6):839–887.Google Scholar
  85. Rissland, E. L. & Soloway, E. M. 1980. Overview of an Example Generation System. In Proceedings AAAI-80, Stanford, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  86. Rissland, E. L. 1981. Constrained Example Generation. Technical Report 81–24, Computer and Information Science Department, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  87. Rissland, E. L. 1990. Artificial Intelligence and Law: Stepping Stones to a Model of Legal Reasoning. Yale Law Journal 99(8):1957–1981.Google Scholar
  88. Rose, D. E. & Belew, R. K. 1991. A Connectionist and Symbolic Hybrid for Improving Legal Research. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35(1):1–33.Google Scholar
  89. Sanders, K. E. 1991. Within the Letter of the Law: Reasoning Among Multiple Cases. In Proceedings of the Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, 317–326, Washington, DC: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency — Information Science and Technology Office.Google Scholar
  90. Schaffner, K. F. 1990. Case-Based Reasoning in Law and Ethics. Presentation at the ‘Foundations of Bioethics’ Conference. Hastings Center.Google Scholar
  91. Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  92. Schank, R. 1984. The Cognitive Computer: On Language, Learning and Artificial Intelligence. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  93. Sergot, M. J., Sadri, F., Kowalski, R. A., Kriwaczek, F., Hammond, P. & Cory, H. T. 1986. The British Nationality Act as a Logic Program. Communications of the ACM 29(5):370–386.Google Scholar
  94. Shortliffe, E. H. 1984. Details of the Consultation System. In Buchanan, Bruce G. and Shortliffe, Edward H. (eds.), Rule-Based Expert Systems, 78–132. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  95. Simoudis, E. & Miller, J. S. 1991. The Application of CBR to Help Desk Applications. In Proceedings of the Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, 25–36. Washington, DC: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency — Information Science and Technology Office.Google Scholar
  96. Simpson, R. L. 1985. A Computer Model of Case-Based Reasoning in Problem Solving. PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology. GIT-ICS-85/18.Google Scholar
  97. Sinha, A. P. 1993. IDEA: A Case-Based Model of Design Assistance. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Katz Graduate School of Business. Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  98. Smith, J. C. & Deedman, C. 1987. The Application of Expert Systems Technology to Case-Based Law. In First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Boston: Northeastern University.Google Scholar
  99. Stanfill, C. & Waltz, D. 1986. Toward Memory-Based Reasoning. Communications of the ACM 29(12): 1213–1228.Google Scholar
  100. Stanfill, C. W. 1987. Memory-Based Reasoning Applied to English Pronunciation. In Proceedings AAAI-87, 577–581. Seattle: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  101. Strong, C. 1988. Justification in Ethics. In Baruch A. Brody, editor, Moral Theory and Moral Judgments in Medical Ethics, 193–211. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  102. SUP. 1985. The Complete Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States. Frederick, MD: University Publications of America.Google Scholar
  103. Susskind, R. E. 1987. Expert Systems in Law: a Jurisprudential Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Swartout, W. R. 1983. XPLAIN: a System for Creating and Explaining Expert Consulting Programs. Artificial Intelligence 21(3): 285–325.Google Scholar
  105. Sycara, K. & Navinchandra, D. 1991. Influences: A Thematic Abstraction for Creative Use of Multiple Cases. In Proceedings of the Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, 133–144. Washington, DC: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency-Information Science and Technology Office.Google Scholar
  106. Sycara, K. 1987. Resolving Adversarial Conflicts: An Approach Integrating Case-Based and Analytic Methods. PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology. School of Information and Computer Science, Technical Report No. 87–26. To be published under the title Case-Based Reasoning: A Study in Conflict Resolution, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ.Google Scholar
  107. Sycara, K. 1989. Argumentation: Planning Other Agents' Plans. In Proceedings IJCAI-89, 517–523. Detroit: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  108. Sycara, K. 1989. Resolving Goal Conflicts via Negotiation. In Proceedings AAAI-88, 245–250. St. Paul: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  109. Veloso, M. M. & Carbonell, J. G. 1991. Variable-Precision Case Retrieval in Analogical Problem Solving. In Proceedings of the Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, 93–106, Washington, DC: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency — Information Science and Technology Office.Google Scholar
  110. Vossos, G., Zeleznikow, J., Dillon, T. & Vossos, V. 1991. An Example of Integrating Legal Case Based Reasoning with Object-Oriented Rule-Based Systems: IKBALS II. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Articial Intelligence and Law, 31–41, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  111. Walker, R. F., Oskamp, A., Schrickx, J. A., van Opdorp, G. J. & van den Berg, P. H. 1991. Prolexs: Creating Law and Order in a Heterogeneous Domain. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35(1):35–68.Google Scholar
  112. Waterman, D. A. & Peterson, M. 1980. Rule-Based Models of Legal Expertise. In Proceedings AAAI-80, Stanford, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  113. Waterman, D. A. & Peterson, M. 1981. Models of Legal Decisionmaking. Technical Report R-2717–1CJ, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin D. Ashley
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Assistant Professor of Law and Intelligent SystemsUniversity of Pittsburgh, School of LawUSA
  2. 2.Learning Research and Development CenterPittsburghU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations