Reasoning
with Cases
A
Selected Bibliography
Trevor Bench-Capon
Department of Computer
Science
University of Liverpool
General
History of the Field
Trevor J.
M. Bench-Capon, Michal
Araszkiewicz, Kevin
D. Ashley, Katie
Atkinson, Floris
Bex, Filipe
Borges, Daničle Bourcier, Paul
Bourgine, Jack
G. Conrad, Enrico
Francesconi, Thomas
F. Gordon, Guido
Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David
D. Lewis, Ronald
Prescott Loui, L.
Thorne McCarty, Henry
Prakken, Frank
Schilder, Erich
Schweighofer, Paul
Thompson, Alex
Tyrrell, Bart
Verheij, Douglas
N. Walton, Adam
Zachary Wyner: A history of AI
and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law.
Artif. Intell. Law 20(3):
215-319 (2012)
Trevor
Bench-Capon (2017). HYPOs Legacy: Introduction to
the Virtual Special Issue. Artificial
Intelligence and Law, Vol 25 No 2. Pages 205-250.
Thorne
McCarty
L. Thorne McCarty,
Reflections on TAXMAN: An Experiment in Artificial Intelligence and Legal
Reasoning, Harvard Law Review, vol. 90, pages 837-893 (1977).
L. Thorne McCarty, N. S. Sridharan: The Representation of an Evolving System of Legal Concepts: II. Prototypes and Deformations. IJCAI 1981: 246-253
"A Computational Theory of Eisner v. Macomber," in C. Ciampi,
ed., Artificial Intelligence and Legal Information Systems, pages
329-355 (North-Holland Publishing Co., 1982).
L. Thorne McCarty:
An Implementation of Eisner v. Macomber.
ICAIL 1995: 276-286
Edwina
Rissland
Edwina L. Rissland: Examples in Legal Reasoning: Legal Hypotheticals. IJCAI 1983: 90-93
Edwina L. Rissland, Jody J. Daniels: A Hybrid CBR-IR Approach to Legal Information Retrieval. ICAIL 1995: 52-61
Edwina L. Rissland, M. Timur Friedman: Detecting Change in Legal Concepts. ICAIL 1995: 127-136
HYPO
Edwina L. Rissland, Kevin D. Ashley: A Case-Based System for Trade Secrets Law. ICAIL 1987: 60-66
Kevin D. Ashley, Edwina L. Rissland: A Case-Based Approach to Modeling Legal Expertise. IEEE Expert 3(3): 70-77 (1988)
Kevin D. Ashley: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals in HYPO. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(6): 753-796 (1991)
Ashley, K.D., (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. The MIT Press / Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA.
CABARET
Edwina L. Rissland, David B. Skalak: CABARET: Rule Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(6): 839-887 (1991)
Edwina L. Rissland, David B. Skalak: CABARET: Rule Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(6): 839-887 (1991)
David B. Skalak, Edwina L. Rissland: Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining. Artif. Intell. Law 1(1): 3-44 (1992)
BANKXX
Edwina L. Rissland, David B. Skalak, M. Timur Friedman: BankXX: Supporting Legal Arguments through Heuristic Retrieval. Artif. Intell. Law 4(1): 1-71 (1996)
Edwina L. Rissland, David B. Skalak, M. Timur Friedman: Evaluating a Legal Argument Program: The BankXX Experiments. Artif. Intell. Law 5(1-2): 1-74 (1997)
CATO
Vincent Aleven, Kevin D. Ashley: Doing Things with Factors. ICAIL 1995: 31-41
Vincent Aleven, Kevin D. Ashley: Evaluating a Learning Environment for Case-Based Argumentation Skills. ICAIL 1997: 170-179
Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. Ph.D. Thesis, Intelligent Systems Program, University of Pittsburgh.
IBP
Stefanie Brüninghaus, Kevin D. Ashley: Predicting Outcomes of Case-Based Legal Arguments. ICAIL 2003: 233-242
A Predictive Role for Intermediate Legal Concepts, Ashley, K. and Brüninghaus, S. (2003). In the Proceedings 16th Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Jurix-03. pp. 153-162. Utrecht, The Netherlands. December. IOS Press, Amsterdam.
Stefanie Brüninghaus, Kevin D. Ashley: Generating Legal Arguments and Predictions from Case Texts. ICAIL 2005: 65-74
Stefanie Brüninghaus, Kevin D. Ashley: Generating Legal Arguments and Predictions from Case Texts. ICAIL 2005: 65-74
Reconstructing
Factor Based Reasoning
T.J.M. Bench-Capon, Arguing with Cases, in
Proceedings of JURIX 97, GNI Nijmegen, 1997, pp 85-100.
Henry Prakken, Giovanni Sartor: Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game. Artif. Intell. Law 6(2-4): 231-287 (1998)
M. Allen, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, Geof Staniford: A Multi-Agent Legal Argument Generator. DEXA Workshop 2000: 1080-1086
John F. Horty, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon: A factor-based definition of precedential constraint. Artif. Intell. Law 20(2): 181-214 (2012)
Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon: Representing Popov v Hayashi with dimensions and factors. Artif. Intell. Law 20(1): 15-35 (2012)
Adam Rigoni, 2015. An improved factor based approach to precedential constraint. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 23(2), pp.133-160.
Henry Prakken, 2019. Modelling accrual of arguments in ASPIC+. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 103-112).
Henry Prakken 2019, December. Comparing Alternative Factor-and Precedent-Based Accounts of Precedential Constraint. In Proceedings of JURIX 2019: The Thirty-second Annual Conference p. 73-82. IOS Press.
Dimensions and Factors with Magnitude
Edwina Rissland
and Kevin Ashley, 2002. A note on dimensions and factors. Artificial Intelligence and law, 10(1-3), pp.65-77.
Bench-Capon, Trevor and Rissland. Edwina, 2001. Back to the future: dimensions revisited. In Proceedings of JURIX 2001.
Trevor Bench-Capon and Katie Atkinson, 2017. Dimensions and Values for Legal CBR. In JURIX (pp. 27-32).
Adam Rigoni. Representing dimensions within the reason model of precedent. Artificial Intelligence and Law 26, no. 1 (2018): 1-22.
Trevor Bench-Capon and Katie Atkinson., 2018. Lessons from Implementing Factors with Magnitude. In JURIX (pp. 11-20).
John Horty,
2019. Reasoning with dimensions and magnitudes. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 27(3), pp.309-345.
Argumentation
T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 2002. Representation of Case Law as an Argumentation Framework. In T. Bench-Capon, Daskalopoulu, A., and Winkels, R., (eds) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Proceedings of Jurix 2002. IOS Press: Amsterdam. pp 103-112.
Adam Zachary Wyner, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon: Modelling Judicial Context in Argumentation Frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 19(6): 941-968 (2009)
Colen, S., Cnossen, F., & Verheij, B. (2009). How Much Logical Structure is Helpful in Content-Based Argumentation Software for Legal Case Solving?
Henry Prakken: Reconstructing Popov v. Hayashi in a framework for argumentation with structured arguments and Dungean semantics. Artif. Intell. Law 20(1): 57-82 (2012)
Tom Gordon and Doug Walton,
2012. A Carneades reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20(1), pp.37-56
Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor, 2015. Law and logic: A review from an argumentation perspective. Artificial Intelligence, 227, pp.214-245.
Tom Gordon and Doug Walton, 2016, September. Formalizing Balancing Arguments. In Proceedings of COMMA 2016 (pp. 327-338).
Michal Araskiewicz and Tomasz Zurek, 2017. Balancing with Thresholds. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, p.107-112.
Values
Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon: The missing link revisited: The role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artif. Intell. Law 10(1-3): 79-94 (2002)
Henry Prakken: An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artif. Intell. Law 10(1-3): 113-133 (2002)
Giovanni Sartor Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. . Artif. Intell. Law 10(1-3): 95-112 (2002)
Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, Giovanni Sartor: A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif. Intell. 150(1-2): 97-143 (2003)
Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, Katie Atkinson, Alison Chorley: Persuasion and Value in Legal Argument. J. Log. Comput. 15(6): 1075-1097 (2005)
Adam Zachary Wyner, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, Katie Atkinson: Arguments, Values and Baseballs: Representation of Popov v. Hayashi. JURIX 2007: 151-160
Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, Sanjay Modgil: Case law in extended argumentation frameworks. ICAIL 2009: 118-127
Latifa Al-Abdulkarim, Hatie Atkinson, and Trevor Bench-Capon, 2015. Factors, issues and values: Revisiting reasoning with cases. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (pp. 3-12).
Argumentation
Schemes
Katie Greenwood, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, Peter McBurney: Towards a Computational Account of Persuasion in Law. ICAIL 2003: 22-31
Katie Atkinson, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, Peter McBurney: Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. ICAIL 2005: 35-44
Adam Zachary Wyner, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon: Argument Schemes for Legal Case-based Reasoning. JURIX 2007: 139-149
Trevor Bench-Capon, Henry Prakken, Adam Wyner and Katie Atkinson (2013). Argument Schemes for Reasoning with Legal Cases Using Values. Proceedings of Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ICAIL 2013 pp13-22.
Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Henry Prakken and Adam Wyner, 2013. Argumentation Schemes for Reasoning about Factors with Dimensions. In Proceedings of JURIX 2013 (pp. 39-48).
Henry Prakken, Adam Wyner, Trevor Bench-Capon and Katie Atkinson (2015), A formalisation of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+. Journal of Logic and Computation, 25(5) pp 1141-66.
AGATHA
Alison Chorley, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon: AGATHA: Using heuristic search to automate the construction of case law theories. Artif. Intell. Law 13(1): 9-51 (2005)
Theory
Construction
Alison
Chorley, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon: An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through
theory construction and application. Artif. Intell. Law 13(3-4):
323-371 (2005)
Adam Zachary Wyner, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, Katie Atkinson: Towards formalising argumentation about legal cases. ICAIL 2011: 1-10
Neural
Networks
Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon: Neural Networks and Open Texture. ICAIL 1993: 292-297
Semantic
Networks
Karl Branting: Representing and Reusing Explanations of Legal Precedents. ICAIL 1989: 103-110
Karl Branting: Building Explanations from Rules and Structured Cases. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(6): 797-837 (1991)
Karl Branting: A Reduction-Graph Model of Ratio Decidendi.
ICAIL
1993: 40-49
Karl Branting: A computational model of ratio decidendi. Artif. Intell. Law 2(1): 1-31 (1993)
Extending
Factors
Roth, B., & Verheij, B. (2004). Dialectical Arguments and Case Comparison. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2004: The Seventeenth Annual Conference (ed. Gordon, T.F.), 99-108. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Evidence
F.J. Bex, H. Prakken
& B. Verheij (2007) Formalising argumentative
story-based analysis of evidence. Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1-10. New York: ACM Press.
F.J. Bex,
S.W. van den Braak, H. van Oostendorp,
H. Prakken, H.B. Verheij
& G.A.W. Vreeswijk (2007) Sense-making software
for crime investigation: how to combine stories and arguments? Law,
Probability & Risk 6:145-168
F.J. Bex,
P.J. van Koppen, H. Prakken
& B. Verheij (2010) A Hybrid Formal Theory of Arguments,
Stories and Criminal Evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18:2,
123-152
F.J. Bex
(2011) Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence: A Formal Hybrid Theory.
Springer, Dordrecht.