Artificial Intelligence Review

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 393–427 | Cite as

Understanding Similarity: A Joint Project for Psychology, Case-Based Reasoning, and Law

  • Ulrike Hahn
  • Nick Chater

Abstract

Case-based Reasoning (CBR) began as a theory of human cognition, but has attracted relatively little direct experimental or theoretical investigation in psychology. However, psychologists have developed a range of instance-based theories of cognition and have extensively studied how similarity to past cases can guide categorization of new cases. This paper considers the relation between CBR and psychological research, focussing on similarity in human and artificial case-based reasoning in law. We argue that CBR, psychology and legal theory have complementary contributions to understanding similarity, and describe what each offers. This allows us to establish criteria for assessing existing CBR systems in law and to establish what we consider to be the crucial goals for further research on similarity, both from a psychological and a CBR perspective.

Artificial Intelligence and Law case-based reasoning exemplar-models legal reasoning similarity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aamodt, A. & Plaza, E. (1994). Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Communications 7: 39–59.Google Scholar
  2. Aha, D. W. & Goldstone, R. L. (1992). Concept learning and flexible weighting. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Ashley, K. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument-Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MIT press.Google Scholar
  4. Ashley, K. & Rissland, E. (1988). Waiting on Weighting: a Symbolic Least Commitment Approach. In Proceedings: AAAI – 88. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  5. Bankowski, Z., White, I. & Hahn, U. (eds.). (1995). Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning. Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Barsalou, L. (1989). Intraconcept Similarity and its Implications for Interconcept Similarity. In Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, chap. 3. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bartsch-Spörl, B. (1992). Warum es für die Bestimmung von Ähnlichkeit von Fällen beim fallbasierten Schliessen noch keine Patentrezepte gibt und auch keine geben wird ___In Althoff, K., Wess, S., Bartsch-Spörl, B. & Janetzko, D. (eds.), Workshop: Ähnlichkeit von Fällen beim fallbasierten Schliessen. SEKI Working Paper SWP–92–11 (SFB).Google Scholar
  8. Berry, D. & Broadbent, D. (1984). On the Relationship between Task Performance and Associated Verbalizable Knowledge. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 36a: 209–231.Google Scholar
  9. Branting, K. (1989). Representing and Reusing Explanations of Legal Precedents. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.Google Scholar
  10. Branting, K. (1991a). Integrating Rules and Precedents for Classification and Explanation. Ph. D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  11. Branting, K. (1991b). Reasoning with Portions of Precedents. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.Google Scholar
  12. Branting, K. (1993). A reduction-graph model of ratio decidendi. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.Google Scholar
  13. Cross, R. (1977). Precedent in English Law (3rd edition). Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. Dayal, S., Harmer, M., Johnson, P. & Mead, D. (1993). Beyond Knowledge Representation: Commercial Uses for Legal Knowledge Bases. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.Google Scholar
  15. Dworkin, R. (1977). No Right Answer?. In Hacker, P. & Raz, J. (eds.), Law, Morality and Society: Essays in Honour of H. L. A. Hart. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Garner, W. (1978). Aspects of a Stimulus: Features, Dimensions, and Configurations. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Gati, I. & Tversky, A. (1984). Weighting Common and Distinctive Features in Perceptual and Conceptual Judgements. Cognitive Psychology 16: 341–370.Google Scholar
  18. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, chap. 7. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gentner, D. & Forbus, K. D. (1991). MAC/FAC: A Model of Similarity-based Retrieval. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Georgin, E., Bordin, F. & McDonald, J. (1995). CBR applied to fault diagnosis on steam turbines. In Watson, I., Marir, F. & Perera, S. (eds.), First United Kingdom Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning.Google Scholar
  21. Goldstone, R. (1994a). The Role of Similarity in Categorization: Providing a Groundwork. Cognition 52: 125–157.Google Scholar
  22. Goldstone, R. (1994b). Similarity, Interactive Activation, and Mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20: 3–28.Google Scholar
  23. Goldstone, R., Medin, D. & Gentner, D. (1991). Relational Similarity and the Nonindependance of Features in Similarity Judgements. Cognitive Psychology 23: 222–262.Google Scholar
  24. Goodman, N. (1972). Problems and Projects, chap. Seven Strictures on Similarity. Bobbs Merill Comp.Google Scholar
  25. Gordon, T. (1993). The Pleadings Game – Formalizing Procedural Justice. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.Google Scholar
  26. Griggs, R. A. & Cox, J. R. (1982). The elusive thematic-materials effect in Wason's selection task. British Journal of Psychology 73: 407–420.Google Scholar
  27. Hahn, U. & Chater, N. (1994). Similarity in Legal Reasoning – an Experimental Approach. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  28. Hahn, U. & Chater, N. (1997). Concepts and Similarity. In Lamberts, K. & Shanks, D. (eds.), Knowledge, Concepts, and Categories (forthcoming). Psychology Press/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hahn, U., Chater, N. & Henley, R. (1996). Weighting in Similarity Judgements: Investigating the MAX Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  30. Haigh, K. & Shewchuk, J. (1994). Geometric Similarity Metrics for Case-Based Reasoning. In Proceedings: 1994 AAAI workshop on case-based reasoning. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  31. Herbig, B. & Wess, S. (1992). Ähnlichkeit und Ähnlichkeitsmasse. In Fall-basiertes Schliessen – Eine Übersicht. SEKI Working papers SWP–92–08, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany.Google Scholar
  32. Hintzman, D. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review 93: 411–428.Google Scholar
  33. Janetzko, D., Melis, E. & Wess, S. (1993). System and Processing View in Similarity Assessment. In Richter, M., Wess, S., Althoff, K. & Maurer, F. (ed.), Presentations and Posters: First European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. SEKI Report SR–93–12 (SFB 314).Google Scholar
  34. Kolodner, J. (1991). Improving Human Decision Making through Case-Based Decision Aiding. AI Magazine, 52–68.Google Scholar
  35. Kolodner, J. (1992). An Introduction to Case-Based Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review 6: 3–34.Google Scholar
  36. Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-based reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  37. Levi, E. H. (1949). An Introduction To Legal Reasoning. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Llewellyn, K. N. (1930). The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study (1960 edition). Oceana Publications.Google Scholar
  39. MacCormick, N. (1987). Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Clarendon.Google Scholar
  40. Medin, D., Dewey, G. & Murphy, T. (1983). Relationships Between Item and Category Learning: Evidence that Abstraction Is Not Automatic. Journal of Experimental Psychology 9: 607–625.Google Scholar
  41. Medin, D., Goldstone, R. & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for Similarity. Psychological Review 100: 254–278.Google Scholar
  42. Medin, D. & Schaffer, M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review 85: 207–238.Google Scholar
  43. Mendelson, S. (1989). An attempted dimensional analysis of the law governing government appeals. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.Google Scholar
  44. Murphy, G. & Medin, D. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review 92: 289–316.Google Scholar
  45. Murray, J. L. (1982). The Role of Analogy in Legal Reasoning. UCLA Law Review 29: 833–871.Google Scholar
  46. Nosofsky, R. (1984). Choice, Similarity and the Context Theory of Classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 10: 104–114.Google Scholar
  47. Nosofsky, R. (1988). Exemplar-based Accounts of Relations between Classification, Recognition, and Typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 14: 700–708.Google Scholar
  48. Nosofsky, R. (1990). Relations between Exemplar-Similarity and Likelihood Models of Classification. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 34.Google Scholar
  49. Nosofsky, R. (1992). Exemplars, Prototypes, and Similarity Rules. In Healy, A., Kosslyn, S. & Shiffrin, R. (eds.), From Learning Theory to Connectionist Theory: Essays in Honor of William K. Estes. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Nosofsky, R. (1994). Rule-Plus-Exception Model of Classification Learning. Psychological Review 101: 53–79.Google Scholar
  51. Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (1991). Against Logicist Cognitive Science. Mind and Language 6: 1–38.Google Scholar
  52. Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  53. Porter, B., Bareiss, R. & Holte, R. (1990). Concept Learning and Heuristic Classification. Artificial Intelligence 45: 229–263.Google Scholar
  54. Price, C. & Pegler, I. (1995). Deciding Parameter Values with Case-Based Reasoning. In Watson, I., Marir, F. & Perera, S. (eds.), First United Kingdom Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning.Google Scholar
  55. Raz, J. (1979). The Authority of Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  56. Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118.Google Scholar
  57. Redington, M. & Chater, N. (1995). Transfer in Artificial Grammar Learning: A Re-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General forthcoming.Google Scholar
  58. Riesbeck, C. & Schank, R. (1989). Inside Case-based Reasoning. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  59. Rips, L. (1975). Inductive Judgements about Natural Categories. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 14: 665–681.Google Scholar
  60. Rissland, E., Skalak, D. & Friedman, M. (1993). BankXX: A program to generate argument through case-based search. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.Google Scholar
  61. Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (1978). Process. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  62. Ross, B. (1987). This Is Like That: The Use of Earlier Problems and the Separation of Similarity Effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 13: 629–637.Google Scholar
  63. Ross, B. (1989). Some Psychological Results on Case-Based Reasoning. In Proceedings of the workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, pp. 144–148.Google Scholar
  64. Ross, B., Perkins, S. & Tenpenny, P. (1990). Reminding-based Category Learning. Cognitive Psychology 22: 460–492.Google Scholar
  65. Sanders, K. (1994). CHIRON: planning in an open-textured domain. Ph. D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, Brown University, Providence, R. I.Google Scholar
  66. Sartor, G. (1991). The structure of norm conditions and non-monotonic reasoning in law. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.Google Scholar
  67. Sartor, G. (1993). A simple computational model for non-monotonic and adversarial legal reasoning. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.Google Scholar
  68. Sartor, G. (1995). Defeasibility in Legal Reasoning. In Bankowski, Z., White, I. & Hahn, U. (eds.), Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  69. Schank, R. (1982). Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Shanks, D. & John, M. S. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17: 367–395.Google Scholar
  71. Shepard, R. (1980). Multidimensional Scaling, Tree-fitting, and Clustering. Science 210: 390–399.Google Scholar
  72. Shepard, R. (1987). Toward a Universal Law of Generalization for Psychological Science. Science 237: 1317–1323.Google Scholar
  73. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C. & Scheines, R. (1993). Causation, Prediction, and Search. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  74. Stone, R. (1994). Contract Law. Cavendish.Google Scholar
  75. Susskind, R. (1987). Expert Systems in Law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of Similarity. Psychological Review 84: 327–352.Google Scholar
  77. Tversky, A. & Gati, I. (1978). Studies of Similarity. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  78. Tversky, A. & Gati, I. (1982). Similarity, separability and the triangle inequality. Psychological Review 89: 123–154.Google Scholar
  79. Weir, T. (1988). A Casebook on Tort (6 edition). Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
  80. Yang, S., Robertson, D. & Lee, J. (1993a). KICS: a knowledge-intensive case-based reasoning system for statutory building regulations and case histories. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.Google Scholar
  81. Yang, S., Robertson, D. & Less, J. (1993b). Use of Case Based Reasoning in the Domain of Building Regulations. In Richter, M., Wess, S., Althoff, K. & Maurer, F. (eds.), Presentations and Posters: First European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. SEKI Report SR9312 (SFB 314).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrike Hahn
    • 1
  • Nick Chater
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WarwickCoventryU.K

Personalised recommendations