Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

BankXX: Supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 network of domain knowledge, information is incrementally analyzed and amalgamated into a dozen desirable ingredients for argument (called argument pieces), such as citations to cases, applications of legal theories, and references to prototypical factual scenarios. At the conclusion of the search, BankXX outputs the set of argument pieces filled with harvested material relevant to the input problem situation.

This research explores the appropriateness of the search paradigm as a framework for harvesting and mining information needed to make legal arguments. In this article, we describe how legal research fits the heuristic search framework and detail how this model is used in BankXX. We describe the BankXX program with emphasis on its representation of legal knowledge and legal argument. We describe the heuristic search mechanism and evaluation functions that drive the program. We give an extended example of the processing of BankXX on the facts of an actual legal case in BankXX's application domain — the good faith question of Chapter 13 personal bankruptcy law. We discuss closely related research on legal knowledge representation and retrieval and the use of search for case retrieval or tasks related to argument creation. Finally we review what we believe are the contributions of this research to the understanding of the diverse disciplines it addresses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvarado, S. J. (1990). Understanding Editorial Text: A Computer Model of Argument Comprehension. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. & Aleven, V. (1991). A Computational Approach to Explaining Case-Based Concepts of Relevance in a Tutorial Context. Proceedings Case-Based Reasoning Workshop 1991, 257–268. Washington, D.C. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. & Rissland, E. L. (1987). But, See, Accord: Generating Blue Book Citations in HYPO. Proceedings First International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL-87), 67–74. Boston, MA. Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, A., Feigenbaum, E. A. & Cohen, P. (1981). The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D. H. & Hafner, C. D. (1991). Incorporating Procedural Context into a Model of Case-Based Legal Reasoning. Proceedings Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-91), 12–20. Oxford, England. Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatnagar, R. K. (1989). Construction of Preferred Causal Hypotheses for Reasoning with Uncertain Knowledge. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatnagar, R. & Kanal, L. N. (1991). A Formalism for Automated Generation of Preferred Arguments. Working Notes, AAAI Spring Symposium Series, Argument and Belief, 39–61. Palo Alto, CA.

  • Bing, J. (1987). Designing Text Retrieval Systems for “Conceptual Searching.” Proceedings First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-87), 43–51. Boston, MA. Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bluebook. (1986). A Uniform System of Citation (14th ed.). Cambridge, MA: The Harvard Law Review Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branting, L. K. (1991). Building Explanations from Rules and Structured Cases. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 797–837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft, W.B. (1979). Organizing and Searching Large Files of Document Descriptions. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cambridge, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasarathy, B. V. (1991). Nearest Neighbor (NN) Norms: NN Pattern Classification Techniques. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, J. P. (1987). Conceptual Retrieval and Case Law. Proceedings First International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL-87), 106–115. Boston, MA. Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fikes, R. E., Hart, P., & Nilsson, N. J. (1972). Learning and executing generalized robot plans. Artificial Intelligence. 3:251–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, A. vdl. (1987). An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelbart, D. and Smith, J.C. (1991). Beyond Boolean Search: FLEXICON, A Legal Text-Based Intelligent System. Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL91), 225–234. Oxford, England. Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. F. (1991). An Abductive Theory of Legal Issues. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 35:95–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner, C. D. (1981). 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.

  • Hafner, C. D. (1987). Conceptual Organization of Case Law Knowledge Bases. Proceedings First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 35–42. Boston, MA. Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. J. (1989). Case-Based Planning: Viewing Planning as a Memory Task. Boston, MA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L. (1983). Maintaining Organization in a Dynamic Long-Term Memory. Cognitive Science, 7(4), 243–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunz, C. L., Schmedemann, D. A., Bateson, A. L., Downs, M. P. & Erlinder, C. P. (1992). The Process of Legal Research (Third Edition ed.). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehnert, W. G. (1981). Plot units and Narrative Summarization. Cognitive Science, 5(4): 293–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, E. H. (1949). An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. P., Norman, J., Olson, J., & Merrill, A. (1993). A Design for Reasoning with Policies, Precedents, and Rationales. Proceedings Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-93), 202–211. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T., & Sridharan, N. S. (1982). A Computational Theory of Legal Argument. Technical Report LRP-TR-13. Laboratory for Computer Science, Rutgers University.

  • Minton, S. (1988). Learning Effective Search Control Knowledge: An Explanation-Based Approach. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, N. J. (1990). The Mathematical Foundations of Learning Machines. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, B. W., Bareiss, R. & Holte, R. C. (1990). Concept Learning and Heuristic Classification in Weak-Theory Domains. Artificial Intelligence, 45, 229–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. (1993). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Ph. D. Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L. (1977). Epistemology, Representation, Understanding and Interactive Exploration of Mathematical Theories. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT, 1977.

  • Rissland, E. L. (1978). Understanding Understanding Mathematics. Cognitive Science, 2, 361–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L. (1980). Example Generation. Proceedings Third National Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, Victoria, BC.

  • Rissland, E. L., Daniels, J. J., Rubinstein, Z. B. & Skalak, D. B. (1993). Case-Based Diagnostic Analysis in a Blackboard Architecture. Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-93), 66–72. Washington, DC. AAAI Press/MIT Press.

    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 Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L., Skalak, D. B. & Friedman, M. T. (1993a). Case Retrieval through Multiple Indexing and Heuristic Search. Proceedings of Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-93), Chambery, Savoie, France. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L., Skalak, D. B. & Friedman, M. T. (1993b). BankXX: A Program to Generate Argument through Case-Based Search. Proceedings Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-93), 117–124, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E.L., Skalak, D.B. & Friedman, M.T. (1995). Evaluating a Legal Argument Program: The BankXX Experiments. To appear in The Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law. Also available as Technical Report, CMPSCI TR 95–30, Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L., Valcarce, E. M. & Ashley, K. D. (1984). Explaining and Arguing with Examples. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-84), 288–294. 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 

  • Rose, D. E. (1994). A Symbolic and Connectionist Approach to Legal Information Retrieval. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salton, G. (1989). Automatic Text Processing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, A. L. (1959). Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBMJ. Research and Development, 3:210–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, A. L. (1967). Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. II — Recent Progress. IBM J. Research and Development, 11:601–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic Memory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C. (1990). Tell Me a Story: A New Look at Real and Artificial Memory. New York, NY: Scribner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard's. (1994). Shepard's Federal Citations. Colorado Springs, CO: Shepard's/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skalak, D. B. (1994). Prototype and Feature Selection by Sampling and Random Mutation Hill Climbing Algorithms. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Machine Learning. New Brunswick, NJ. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skalak, D. B. & Rissland, E. L. (1992). Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law: An International Journal, 1(1), 3–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, T. A., Warren, E. & Westbrook, J. L. (1989). As We Forgive Our Debtors. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sycara, K. P. (1989). Argumentation: Planning Other Agents' Plans. Proceedings Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-88), 517–523. Detroit, MI.

  • Sycara, K. P. & Navinchandra, D. (1991). Influences: A Thematic Abstraction for Creative Use of Multiple Cases. Proceedings Case-Based Reasoning Workshop 1991, 133–144. Washington, DC. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses ofArgument. Cambridge University Press.

  • Twining, W. & Miers, D. (1991). How To Do Things With Rules. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R. (1988). Organizing and Using Schematic Knowledge for Medical Diagnosis. Proceedings Case-Based Reasoning Workshop 1988, 435–446. Clearwater Beach, FL. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utgoff, P. E., & Clouse, J. A. (1991). Two kinds of training information for evaluation function learning. Proceedings Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-91), 596–600. Anaheim, CA. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voorhees, E.M. (1985). The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Agglomerative Clustering in Document Retrieval. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • West (1992). WestLaw. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Words and Phrases (1994). Words and Phrases. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Univfersity of Massachusetts, 01003, Amherst, MA, U.S.A.

    Edwina L. Rissland, David B. Skalak & M. Timur Friedman

Authors
  1. Edwina L. Rissland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David B. Skalak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Timur Friedman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This research was supported in part by grant No. 90-0359 from the Air Force Office of Sponsored Research and NSF grant No. EEC-9209623 State/University/Industry Cooperative Research on Intelligent Information Retrieval.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rissland, E.L., Skalak, D.B. & Friedman, M.T. BankXX: Supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval. Artif Intell Law 4, 1–71 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00123994

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00123994

Key words

Search

Navigation