Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes
Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (2):125-165 (2009)
| Abstract | Work on a computer program called SMILE + IBP (SMart Index Learner Plus Issue-Based Prediction) bridges case-based reasoning and extracting information from texts. The program addresses a technologically challenging task that is also very relevant from a legal viewpoint: to extract information from textual descriptions of the facts of decided cases and apply that information to predict the outcomes of new cases. The program attempts to automatically classify textual descriptions of the facts of legal problems in terms of Factors, a set of classification concepts that capture stereotypical fact patterns that effect the strength of a legal claim, here trade secret misappropriation. Using these classifications, the program can evaluate and explain predictions about a problem’s outcome given a database of previously classified cases. This paper provides an extended example illustrating both functions, prediction by IBP and text classification by SMILE, and reports empirical evaluations of each. While IBP’s results are quite strong, and SMILE’s much weaker, SMILE + IBP still has some success predicting and explaining the outcomes of case scenarios input as texts. It marks the first time to our knowledge that a program can reason automatically about legal case texts. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesVáclav Rajlich (2003). Case Studies of Constructivist Comprehension in Software Engineering. Brain and Mind 4 (2):229-238.
Jacques Savoy (1993). Searching Information in Legal Hypertext Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (3):205-232.
Marie-Francine Moens (2001). Innovative Techniques for Legal Text Retrieval. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (1).
Ben Hachey & Claire Grover (2006). Extractive Summarisation of Legal Texts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (4):305-345.
Carole D. Hafner & Donald H. Berman (2002). The Role of Context in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: Teleological, Temporal, and Procedural. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (1-3).
Adel Saadoun, Jean-Louis Ermine, Claude Belair & Jean-Mark Pouyot (1997). A Knowledge Engineering Framework for Intelligent Retrieval of Legal Case Studies. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (3).
Edwina L. Rissland, David B. Skalak & M. Timur Friedman (1996). BankXX: Supporting Legal Arguments Through Heuristic Retrieval. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (1):1-71.
Lawrence B. Solum (1987). On the Indeterminacy Crisis: Critiquing Critical Dogma. University of Chicago Law Review 54:462.
Caroline Uyttendaele, Marie-Francine Moens & Jos Dumortier (1998). Salomon: Automatic Abstracting of Legal Cases for Effective Access to Court Decisions. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6 (1).
Edwina L. Rissland, David B. Skalak & M. Timur Friedman (1997). Evaluating a Legal Argument Program: The BankXX Experiments. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2).
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-07-13Total downloads3 ( #201,730 of 549,005 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,327 of 549,005 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
