A hybrid rule – neural approach for the automation of legal reasoning in the discretionary domain of family law in australia
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):153-183 (1999)
Few automated legal reasoning systems have been developed in domains of law in which a judicial decision maker has extensive discretion in the exercise of his or her powers. Discretionary domains challenge existing artificial intelligence paradigms because models of judicial reasoning are difficult, if not impossible to specify. We argue that judicial discretion adds to the characterisation of law as open textured in a way which has not been addressed by artificial intelligence and law researchers in depth. We demonstrate that systems for reasoning with this form of open texture can be built by integrating rule sets with neural networks trained with data collected from standard past cases. The obstacles to this approach include difficulties in generating explanations once conclusions have been inferred, difficulties associated with the collection of sufficient data from past cases and difficulties associated with integrating two vastly different paradigms. A knowledge representation scheme based on the structure of arguments proposed by Toulmin has been used to overcome these obstacles. The system, known as Split Up, predicts judicial decisions in property proceedings within family law in Australia. Predictions from the system have been compared to those from a group of lawyers with favourable results.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Salvatore Ruggieri, Dino Pedreschi & Franco Turini (2010). Integrating Induction and Deduction for Finding Evidence of Discrimination. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (1):1-43.
Ruth Kannai, Uri Schild & John Zeleznikow (2007). Modeling the Evolution of Legal Discretion. An Artificial Intelligence Approach. Ratio Juris 20 (4):530-558.
John L. Yearwood & Andrew Stranieri (2006). Deliberative Discourse and Reasoning From Generic Argument Structures. AI and Society 23 (3):353-377.
Paul Huygen (2006). Book Review. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (1-2):143-150.
Similar books and articles
Daniéle Bourcier & Gérard Clergue (1999). From a Rule-Based Conception to Dynamic Patterns. Analyzing the Self-Organization of Legal Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):211-225.
Scott Shapiro (2011). Legality. Harvard University Press.
Jaap C. Hage, Ronald Leenes & Arno R. Lodder (1993). Hard Cases: A Procedural Approach. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (2):113-167.
John Zeleznikow (2002). An Australian Perspective on Research and Development Required for the Construction of Applied Legal Decision Support Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (4):237-260.
Neil MacCormick (2005). Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford University Press.
Barbara Cuthill & Robert McCartney (1993). Issue Spotting in CHASER. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (2):83-111.
Lothar Philipps & Giovanni Sartor (1999). Introduction: From Legal Theories to Neural Networks and Fuzzy Reasoning. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):115-128.
Dan Hunter (1999). Out of Their Minds: Legal Theory in Neural Networks. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):129-151.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #215,417 of 1,699,671 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #161,079 of 1,699,671 )
How can I increase my downloads?