Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The IKBALS project: Multi-modal reasoning in legal knowledge based systems

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

Abstract

In attempting to build intelligent litigation support tools, we have moved beyond first generation, production rule legal expert systems. Our work integrates rule based and case based reasoning with intelligent information retrieval.

When using the case based reasoning methodology, or in our case the specialisation of case based retrieval, we need to be aware of how to retrieve relevant experience. Our research, in the legal domain, specifies an approach to the retrieval problem which relies heavily on an extended object oriented/rule based system architecture that is supplemented with causal background information. We use a distributed agent architecture to help support the reasoning process of lawyers.

Our approach to integrating rule based reasoning, case based reasoning and case based retrieval is contrasted to the CABARET and PROLEXS architectures which rely on a centralised blackboard architecture. We discuss in detail how our various cooperating agents interact, and provide examples of the system at work. The IKBALS system uses a specialised induction algorithm to induce rules from cases. These rules are then used as indices during the case based retrieval process.

Because we aim to build legal support tools which can be modified to suit various domains rather than single purpose legal expert systems, we focus on principles behind developing legal knowledge based systems. The original domain chosen was theAccident Compensation Act 1989 (Victoria, Australia), which relates to the provision of benefits for employees injured at work. For various reasons, which are indicated in the paper, we changed our domain to that ofCredit Act 1984 (Victoria, Australia). This Act regulates the provision of loans by financial institutions.

The rule based part of our system which provides advice on the Credit Act has been commercially developed in conjunction with a legal firm. We indicate how this work has lead to the development of a methodology for constructing rule based legal knowledge based systems. We explain the process of integrating this existing commercial rule based system with the case base reasoning and retrieval architecture.

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

  • Allen, L. E. 1957. Symbolic Logic: A Razor-Edged Tool for Drafting and Interpreting Legal Documents.Yale Law Journal 66: 837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, L. E. & Engholm, C. R. 1978. Normalized Legal Drafting and the Query Method.Journal of Legal Education 29: 380–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, L. E. & Saxon, C. S. 1985. Computer-Aided Normalizing and Unpacking: Some Machine-Processable Transformations of Legal Rules. InComputing Power and Legal Reasoning, ed. C. Walter, 495–572. St. Paul: West Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, L. E. & Saxon, C. S. 1986. Analysis of the Logical Structure of Legal Rules by a Modernized and Formalized Version of Hohfeld's Fundamental Legal Conceptions. InAutomated Analysis of Legal Texts, ed. A. A. Martino and F. S. Natali, 385–450. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, L. E. & Saxon, C. S. 1987. Some Problems in Designing Expert Systems to Aid Legal Reasoning. In Proceedings of theFirst International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 94–103. Boston: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, L. E. & Saxon, C. S. 1991. More IA Needed in AI: Interpretation Assistance for Coping with the Problem of Multiple Structural Interpretations. In Proceedings of theThird International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 53–61. Oxford: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. 1990.Modelling Legal Argument- Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge: Bradford/MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. 1992 Case-Based Reasoning and its Implications for Legal Expert Systems.Artificial Intelligence and Law Journal 1(2): 113–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. & Aleven, V. 1991. Toward an Intelligent Tutoring System for Teaching Law Students to Argue with Cases. In Proceddings of theThird International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 42–52. Oxford Association for Computing Machinery.

  • Ashley, K. D. & Aleven, V. 1993. What Law Students Need to Know to WIN. In Proceedings of theFourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 152–161. Amsterdam: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. & Rissland, E. L. 1988. A Case-Based Approach to Modelling Expertise.IEEE Expert Fall 1988: 70–77.

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M., 1988. Logical Models of Legislation and Expert Systems. InComputer Power and Legal Language, ed. C. Walter, 39–60. New York: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M., 1993. Neural Networks and Open Texture. In Proceedings of theFourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 292–297. Amsterdam: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M. & Sergot, M. J. 1988. Towards a Rule-Based Representation of Open Texture in Law. InComputer Power and Legal Language, ed C. Walter, 39–61. New York: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Robinson, G. O., Routen, T. W. & Sergot, M. J. 1987. Logic Programming for large-scale applications in law. In Proceedings of theFirst International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 190–198. Boston: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D. H. 1989. Cutting Legal Loops. In Proceedings of theSecond International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 251–258. Vancouver: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D. H. 1991. Developer's Choices in the Legal Domain: The Sisyphean Journey or Downhill with Rules. In Proceedings of theThird International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 307–309. Oxford: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D. H. & Hafner, C. D. 1988. Obstacles to the Development of Logic-Based Models of Legal Reasoning. InComputer Power and Legal Reasoning, ed C. Walter, 183–214. New York: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D. H. & Hafner, C. D. 1993. Representing Teleological Structure in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: The Missing Link. In Proceedings of theFourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 50–59. Amsterdam: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, J. 1985 The Anatomy of a Torts Class.American University Law Review 34: 1003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branting, L. K. 1991. Building Explanations from Rules and Structured Cases.International Journal of Man Machine Studies 34(6): 797–838

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodie, M. 1988. Future Intelligent Information Systems: AI and Database Technologies Working Together. InReadings in Artificial Intelligence and Databases, ed M. Brodie and J. Mylopolous, 623–642. Los Altos, Ca.: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodie, M. 1993. The Promise of Distributed Computing and the Challenge of Legacy Information Systems. InSemantics of Interoperable Database Systems (DS-5), IFIP Transactions A-25, ed. D. Hsiao, E. J. Neuhold and R. Sacks-Davis, 1–32, Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, S. J. 1985.An Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft, W. B., Smith, L. A. & Turtle H. W. 1992. A Loosely Coupled Integration of a Text retrieval System and an Object-Oriented Database System. InProceedings of SIGIR92, 223–232. Association of Computing Machinery.

  • Dick, J. P. 1991. Representation of Legal text for Conceptual Retrieval. In Proceedings of theThird International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 244–253. Oxford: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietterich, T. G. & Michalski, R. S. 1983. A Comparative Review of Selected Methods for Learning from Examples. InMachine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Volume 1, ed. R. S. Michalski et al. 41–82. Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, S. 1982 Working on the Chain Gang: Interpretation in Law and Literature.Texas Law Review 60: 551–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, S. 1983. Wrong again.Texas Law Review 62: 299–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, J. N. 1930Law and the Modern Mind Garden City, NY: Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, J. N. 1949Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, A. 1987.An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. Cambridge: Bradford/MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genesereth, M. R. & Nilsson, N. J. 1987.Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence. Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golding, A. R. & Rosenbloom, P. S. 1991. Improving Rule-Based systems through Case-Based Reasoning. In Proceedings of theNinth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-91), 22–217. Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenleaf, G., Mowbray, A. & Tyree, A. L. 1991. The DataLex Legal Workstation-integrating tools for lawyers. In Proceedings of theThird International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 215–224. Oxford: Association of Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner, C. D. 1981a. Representation of Knowledge in a Legal Information Retrieval System. InInformation Retrieval Research, ed. R. N. Oddy, S. Robertson, C. J. van Rijsbergen and P. W. Williams, 139–153. London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner, C. D. 1981b. An Information Retrieval System Based on a Computer of Legal Knowledge. Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Computer Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner, C. D. 1987. Conceptual Organization of Case Law Knowledge Bases. In Proceedings of theFirst International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 35–42. Boston: Association of Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. 1986. CHEF: A Model of Case Based-Planning. InProceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 267–271. Morgan Kaufmann.

  • Hart, H. L. A. 1961.The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, O. W. 1897. The Path of the Law.Harv. L. R. 10: 457–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, D., Tyree, A. & Zeleznikow, J. 1993. There is Less to this Argument than Meets the Eye.Journal of Law and Information Science 4(1): 46–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. & Mead, D. 1991. Legislative Knowledge Base Systems for Public Administration — Some Practices Issues. InProceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 108–117. Oxford: Association of Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koton, P. 1988. Using Experience in Learning and Problem Solving. Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski, A. 1991. Case-Based Reasoning and the Deep Structure Approach to Knowledge Representation. In Proceedings of theThird International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 21–30. Oxford: Association of Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski, R. A. 1979.Logic for Problem Solving. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krovetz, R. 1991. Lexical Acquisition and Information Retrieval. InLexical Acquisition: Exploiting On-Line Resources to Build a Lexicon, ed V. Lernik, 45–64. Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Krovetz, R. & Croft, W. B. 1992. Lexical Ambiguity and Information Retrieval. ACMTransactions on Office Information Systems 10(2): 115–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, E. H. 1948.An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, K. N. 1940 The Normative, the Legal, and the Law-Jobs: The Problem of Juristic Method. Yale L. J. 49: 1355–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, K. N. 1951The Bramble Bush, 2d edn, Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, K. N. 1960The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Apeals. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. 1977. Reflections on TAXMAN: An Experiment in Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning.Harvard Law Review 90: 837–893

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. 1983. Permissions and Obligations. In Proceedings of theEighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 287–294. Karlsruhe: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mital, V., Agathoclis, S. & Johnson, L. 1991. Conceptual information retrieval in litigation support systems. In Proceedings of theThird International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 235–243. Oxford: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mital, V. & Johnson L. 1992.Advanced Information Systems for Lawyers. London: Chapman Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moles, R. N. 1991. Logic Programming — An Assessment of its Potential for Artificial Intelligence Applications in Law.Journal of Law and Information Science 2(2): 137–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Moles, R. N. & Dayal, S. 1993. There is More to Life than Logic.Journal of law and Information Science 3(2): 188–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A. & Simon, H. 1972.Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, J. R., Wilkes, C. T. & Manola, F. A. 1993. Object Orientation in Heterogeneous Distributed Computing Systems.IEEE Computer 26(6): 57–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olivecrona, K. 1939.Law as Fact, 2nd ed, London: Stevens & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oskamp, A., Walker, R. F., Schrickx, J. A. & van den Berg, P. H. 1989. PROLEXS Divide and Rule: A Legal Application. In Proceedings of theSecond International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 54–62. Vancouver: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papazoglou, M. P., Laufmann, S. & Sellis, T. K. 1992. An Organizational Framework for Cooperating Intelligent Information Systems.International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems 1(1): 169–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papazoglou, M. P. & Zeleznikow, J. (eds.) 1992a.The Next Generation of Information Systems: From Data to Knowledge. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 611, Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papazoglou, M. P. & Zeleznikow, J. 1992b. The Next Generation of Information Systems — From Intelligence to Distribution and Cooperation. InThe Next Generation of Information Systems: From Data to Knowledge, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 611, 1–8, Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, J. R. 1986. Induction of Decision Trees.Machine Learning 1: 81–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L. & Skalak, D. B. 1989. Interpreting Statutory Predicates. In Proceedings of theSecond International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 46–53. Vancouver: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L. & Skalak, D. B. 1991. CABARET: Rule Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture.International Journal of Man Machine Studies 34(6): 389–887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salton, G. 1968.Automatic Information Organization and Retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlobohm, D. A. & Waterman, D. A. 1987. Explanation for an Expert System that Performs Estate Planning. In Proceedings of the FirstInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18–27. Boston: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schild, U. J. 1992.Expert Systems in Case Law. London: Ellis Horwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sergot, M. J. 1988. Representing Legislation as Logic Programs. InMachine Intelligence, Volume 11, eds. J. E. Hayes, D. Michie and J. Richards, 209–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Simoudis, E. & Miller, J. S. 1991. The Application of Case Based Reasoning to Help Desk Applications. In Proceedings ofDARPA Workshop on Case Based Reasoning, 25–36. Los Altos CA: Morgan Kauffman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, R. L. 1985. A Computer Model of Case-Based Reasoning in Problem Solving. An Investigation in the Domain of Dispute Mediation. GIT-ICS-85/18, Georgia Institute of Technology, Athens, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J. W. 1984. The Player and the Cards: Nihilism and Legal Theory.Yale L. J. 93: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skalak, D. B. 1989. Taking Advantage of Models for Legal Classification. In Proceedings of theSecond International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 234–241. Vancouver: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. C. & Deedman, C. 1987. The Application of Expert Systems Technology to Case-Based Law. In Proceedings of theFirst International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 84–93. Boston: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, R. E. 1987.Expert Systems in Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushnet, M. 1986. Critical Legal Studies: An Introduction to its Origins and Underpinnings.J. Legal Educ. 36: 505–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyree, A. L. 1985. FINDER: An Expert System. In Proceedings of theFortieth Annual Conference of the Australasian Universities Law Schools Association, Adelaide.

  • Tyree, A. 1992. The Logic Programming Debate.Journal of Law and Information Science 3(1): 111–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unger, R. M. 1986. The Critical Legal Studies Movement.Harvard LR 96: 561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Opdorp, G. J., Walker, R. F., Schrickx, J. A., Groendijk, C. & van den Berg, P. H. 1991. Networks at Work: a connectionist approach to non-deductive legal reasoning. In Proceedings of theThird International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 278–287. Oxford: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vossos, G., Dillon, T., Zeleznikow, J. & Taylor, G. 1991a. The Use of Object Oriented Principles to Develop Intelligent Legal Reasoning Systems.Australian Computer Journal 23(1): 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vossos, G., Zeleznikow, J., Dillon, T. & Vossos, V. 1991b. An Example of Integrating Legal Case Based Reasoning with Object Oriented Rule-Based Systems — IKBALS II. In Proceedings of theThird International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 91–101. Oxford: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vossos, G. & Zeleznikow, J. 1992. Improving Automated Litigation Support by Supplementing Rule-Based Reasoning with Case-Based Reasoning. In Proceedings of theThird International Conference on Integrating Expert Systems and Databases, 138–142. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vossos, G., Zeleznikow, J. & Hunter, D. 1993a. Designing Intelligent Litigation Support Tools — the IKBALS Perspective.Law, Computers & Artificial Intelligence 2(1): 77–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vossos, G., Zeleznikow, J., Moore A. & Hunter, D. 1993b. The Credit Act Advisory System (CAAS): Conversion From an Expert System Prototype to a C++ Commercial System. In Proceedings of theFourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 180–183. Amsterdam: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. F. 1992. An Expert System Architecture for Heterogeneous Domains: A Case Study in the Legal Field. Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. F., Oskamp, A., Schrickx, J. A., Opdorp, G. J. & Berg, P. H. van den. 1991. PROLEXS: Creating Law and Order in a Heterogeneous Domain.International Journal of Man Machine Studies 35(1): 35–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waterman, D. A. 1986.A Guide to Expert Systems. Reading: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waterman, D. A., Paul, J. & Peterson, M. 1986. Expert Systems for Legal Decision Making. InApplications of Expert Systems, ed J. R. Quinlan, 23–47. Sydney: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waterman, D. A. & Peterson, M. 1980. Rule-Based Models of Legal Expertise. In Proceedings of theFirst Annual National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-80), 272–5. Stanford University.

  • Zeleznikow, J. 1991. Building Intelligent Legal Tools — The IKBALS Project.Journal of Law and Information Science 2(2): 165–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleznikow, J. & Hunter, D. 1992. Rationales for the Continued Development of Legal Expert Systems.Journal of Law and Information Science 3(1): 94–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleznikow, J. & Hunter, D. 1994.Knowledge Representation and Reasoning in Legal Information Systems, Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation, (to be published).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Database Research Laboratory, Applied Computing Research Institute, La Trobe University, 3083, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia

    John Zeleznikow & George Vossos

  2. School of Law, University of Melbourne, 3052, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

    Daniel Hunter

Authors
  1. John Zeleznikow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George Vossos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Hunter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zeleznikow, J., Vossos, G. & Hunter, D. The IKBALS project: Multi-modal reasoning in legal knowledge based systems. Artif Intell Law 2, 169–203 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00871889

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00871889

Key words

Search

Navigation