David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (1):1-71 (1996)
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.
|Keywords||legal argument heuristic search best-first search evaluation function bankruptcy law “good faith” information retrieval information harvesting case-domain graph argument pieces argument dimensions argument factors neighbor methods|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner (2012). A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
Adam Wyner & Rinke Hoekstra (2012). A Legal Case OWL Ontology with an Instantiation of Popov V. Hayashi. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):83-107.
Similar books and articles
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):179-205.
Laurens Mommers, Wim Voermans, Wouter Koelewijn & Hugo Kielman (2009). Understanding the Law: Improving Legal Knowledge Dissemination by Translating the Contents of Formal Sources of Law. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (1):51-78.
Marie-Francine Moens (2001). Innovative Techniques for Legal Text Retrieval. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (1):29-57.
John Zeleznikow, George Vossos & Daniel Hunter (1993). The IKBALS Project: Multi-Modal Reasoning in Legal Knowledge Based Systems. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (3):169-203.
Howard Turtle (1995). Text Retrieval in the Legal World. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3 (1-2):5-54.
David B. Skalak & Edwina L. Rissland (1992). Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (1):3-44.
M. Saravanan, B. Ravindran & S. Raman (2009). Improving Legal Information Retrieval Using an Ontological Framework. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (2):101-124.
Wim Peters, Maria-Teresa Sagri & Daniela Tiscornia (2007). The Structuring of Legal Knowledge in Lois. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (2):117-135.
Edwina L. Rissland, David B. Skalak & M. Timur Friedman (1997). Evaluating a Legal Argument Program: The BankXX Experiments. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):1-74.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #323,188 of 1,413,179 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #153,719 of 1,413,179 )
How can I increase my downloads?