Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

ICAIL Doctoral Consortium, Montreal 2019

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

Abstract

This is a report on the Doctoral Consortium co-located with the 17th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law in Montreal.

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

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. Business Process Model And Notation. https://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/ accessed 20.02.2020.

  2. Both models are referred to as automated judicial proceedings.

  3. It is worth mentioning in this context that many empirical studies in various fields proved that the explanation can change the users’ attitudes towards the system: it can increase their confidence and trust in the systems e.g. (Herlocker et al. 2000; Sinha and Swearingen 2002; Bilgic and Mooney 2005 and Symeonidis et al. 2009), and improve their ability to correctly assess whether a prediction is accurate (e.g. Kim et al. 2016; Gkatzia et al. 2016 and Biran and McKeown 2017).

  4. I reject the possibility to use AI in order to make decisions which could not be controlled by humans.

  5. As a result, generic explanations and standard ML explanations [e.g. the list of “most predictive topics” used by Aletras et al. (2016)] are unlikely to be useful and acceptable. Similarly, rewriting the steps of the decision-making algorithm in natural language is not what is required.

  6. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 16 November 2010 (Case of Taxquet v. Belgium).

References

  • Abadi M, Chu A, Goodfellow I, McMahan HB, Mironov I, Talwar K, Zhang L (2016) Deep learning with differential privacy. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, pp 308–318

  • Adadi A, Berrada M (2018) Peeking inside the black-box: a survey on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). IEEE Access 6:52138–52160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aimonino Ricauda N, Isaia G, Tibaldi V, Bestente G, Frisiello A, Sciarappa A, Cavallo S, Ghezzi M, Larini G (2011) Telecare and telemedicine in home care practice: field trial results. In: Distributed diagnosis and home healthcare, vol 2. American Scientific Publishers (ASP), Los Angeles, pp 281–303

  • Aletras N, Tsarapatsanis D, Preoţiuc-Pietro D, Lampos V (2016) Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a natural language processing perspective. PeerJ Comput Sci 2:e93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amantea IA, Di Leva A, Sulis E (2018) A simulation-driven approach in risk-aware business process management: a case study in healthcare. In: Proceedings of 8th international conference on simulation and modeling methodologies, technologies and applications—volume 1 (SIMULTECH), pp 98–105

  • Amantea IA, Di Leva A, Sulis E (2019) Risk-aware business process management: a case study in healthcare. In: Kunreuther H, Meyer RJ, Michel-Kerjan EO (eds) The future of risk management, vol I. Springer, Berlin, pp 157–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellet A, Guerraoui R, Hendrikx H (2019) Who started this rumor? Quantifying the natural differential privacy guarantees of gossip protocols. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.07138

  • Bench-Capon T (2018) Legal cases: argumentation versus ML. In: ArgSoc workshop at comma 2018

  • Bex F, Peters J, Testerink B (2016) AI for online criminal complaints: from natural dialogues to structured scenarios. In: Artificial intelligence for justice workshop (ECAI 2016), pp 22–29

  • Bilgic M, Mooney RJ (2005) Explaining recommendations: satisfaction vs. promotion. In: Beyond personalization workshop, IUI, vol 5, pp 153–160

  • Biran O, McKeown KR (2017) Human-centric justification of machine learning predictions. IJCAI 2017:1461–1467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black E, Hunter A (2009) An inquiry dialogue system. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syste 19(2):173–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarty S, Phanindra RVS, Fox EA (2019) Dialog acts classification for question-answer corpora. In: Third workshop on automated semantic analysis of information in legal text (ASAIL 2019)

  • Chartier Y (2014) Safe management of wastes from health-care activities. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhuri K, Monteleoni C, Sarwate AD (2011) Differentially private empirical risk minimization. J Mach Learn Res 12(Mar):1069–1109

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • De Graaf MM, Malle BF (2017) How people explain action (and autonomous intelligent systems should too). In: 2017 AAAI fall symposium on artificial intelligence for human-robot interaction

  • Dhingra B, Li L, Li X, Gao J, Chen Y-N, Ahmed F, Deng L (2016) Towards end-to-end reinforcement learning of dialogue agents for information access. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.00777

  • Duchi JC, Jordan MI, Wainwright MJ (2013) Local privacy and statistical minimax rates. In: 2013 IEEE 54th annual symposium on foundations of computer science. IEEE, pp 429–438

  • Dwork C (2008) Differential privacy: a survey of results. In: International conference on theory and applications of models of computation. Springer, pp 1–19

  • Dwork C, McSherry F, Nissim K, Smith A (2006) Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In: Theory of cryptography conference. Springer, pp 265–284

  • Fan X, Toni F (2012) Agent strategies for ABA-based information-seeking and inquiry dialogues. Proc ECAI 2012:324–329

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Fishman GS (2013) Discrete-event simulation: modeling, programming, and analysis. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gao J, Galley M, Li L et al (2019) Neural approaches to conversational AI. Found Trends Inf Retr 13(2–3):127–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gkatzia D, Lemon O, Rieser V (2016) Natural language generation enhances human decision-making with uncertain information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03254

  • Hart HLA (1961) The concept of law. Oxford Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Herlocker JL, Konstan JA, Riedl J (2000) Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pp 241–250

  • Hohfeld WN (1913) Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law J 23:16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jurasky D, Martin JH (2000) Speech and language processing: an introduction to natural language processing. Computational linguistics and speech recognition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim B, Khanna R, Koyejo OO (2016) Examples are not enough, learn to criticize! criticism for interpretability. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 2280–2288

  • Kocourek A (1930) An introduction to the science of law. Little, Brown and Company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin C-Y, Och F (2004) Looking for a few good metrics: rouge and its evaluation. In: Ntcir workshop

  • McMahan B, Ramage D (2017) Federated learning: collaborative machine learning without centralized training data. Google Research Blog, 3

  • Parsons S, Wooldridge M, Amgoud L (2002) An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 394–401

  • Prakken H (2010) An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum Comput 1(2):93–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Racz N, Weippl E, Seufert A (2010) A process model for integrated it governance, risk, and compliance management. In: Proceedings of the ninth baltic conference on databases and information systems (DB&IS 2010). Citeseer, pp 155–170

  • Rainero C, Secinaro S, Nave E, Bignamini E (2017) Home tele-monitoring: economic and social impact of the service for patients with chronic respiratory deseas. In: 7th global innovation and knowledge accademy (Gika). Editorial ARANZADI, pp 441–442

  • Rose GA, Khaw K-T, Marmot M (2008) Rose’s strategy of preventive medicine: the complete original text. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salmond JW (1907) Jurisprudence: or the theory of the law. Stevens and Haynes, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraagen M, Bex F (2019) Extraction of semantic relations in noisy user-generated law enforcement data. In: 2019 IEEE 13th international conference on semantic computing (ICSC). IEEE, pp 79–86

  • Schraagen M, Testerink B, Odekerken D, Bex F (2018) Argumentation-driven information extraction for online crime reports. In: International workshop on legal data analysis and mining (LeDAM 2018): CEUR workshop proceedings

  • Searle J (2010) Making the social world: the structure of human civilization. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha R, Swearingen K (2002) The role of transparency in recommender systems. In: CHI’02 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pp 830–831

  • Smith A (2011) Privacy-preserving statistical estimation with optimal convergence rates. In: Proceedings of the forty-third annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, pp 813–822

  • Symeonidis P, Nanopoulos A, Manolopoulos Y (2009) Moviexplain: a recommender system with explanations. In: Proceedings of the third ACM conference on recommender systems, pp 317–320

  • Testerink B, Odekerken D, Bex F (2019a) AI-assisted message processing for the Netherlands national police. In: ICAIL 2019 workshop on AI and the administrative state (AIAS 2019). CEUR

  • Testerink B, Odekerken D, Bex F (2019b) A method for efficient argument-based inquiry. In: International conference on flexible query answering systems. Springer, pp 114–125

  • Timmer ST, Meyer J-JC, Prakken H, Renooij S, Verheij B (2017) A two-phase method for extracting explanatory arguments from Bayesian networks. Int J Approx Reason 80:475–494

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • van Doesburg R, van Engers T (2015) Arguments on the interpretation of sources of law. In: AI approaches to the complexity of legal systems. Springer, pp 478–492

  • van Doesburg R, Van Engers T (2018) Using formal interpretations of legal sources for comparing the application of exclusion clauses of the un refugee convention. Jusletter IT, pp 175–84

  • van Doesburg R, van Engers T (2019a) Explicit interpretation of the dutch aliens act. In: Proceedings of the workshop on artificial intelligence and the administrative state

  • van Doesburg R, van Engers T (2019b) The false, the former, and the parish priest. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 194–198

  • Verheij B, Bex F, Timmer ST, Vlek CS, Meyer J-JC, Renooij S, Prakken H (2016) Arguments, scenarios and probabilities: connections between three normative frameworks for evidential reasoning. Law Probab Risk 15(1):35–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent C (2011) Patient safety. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent C, Taylor-Adams S, Chapman EJ, Hewett D, Prior S, Strange P, Tizzard A (2000) How to investigate and analyse clinical incidents: clinical risk unit and association of litigation and risk management protocol. BMJ 320(7237):777–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlek CS, Prakken H, Renooij S, Verheij B (2016) A method for explaining bayesian networks for legal evidence with scenarios. Artif Intell Law 24(3):285–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young S, Gašić M, Thomson B, Williams JD (2013) Pomdp-based statistical spoken dialog systems: a review. Proc IEEE 101(5):1160–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Kraków, Poland

    Michał Araszkiewicz

  2. University of Torino, Turin, Italy

    Ilaria Angela Amantea

  3. University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Ilaria Angela Amantea

  4. University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

    Ilaria Angela Amantea

  5. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

    Saurabh Chakravarty

  6. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Robert van Doesburg

  7. Faculty of Law, Administration and Economics, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland

    Maria Dymitruk

  8. Centre de mathématiques et de leurs applications, CNRS, ENS Paris-Saclay, Université Paris-Saclay, Saint-Aubin, France

    Marie Garin

  9. MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Leilani Gilpin

  10. Utrecht University and Dutch National Police, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Daphne Odekerken

  11. Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Brussels, Belgium

    Seyedeh Sajedeh Salehi

Authors
  1. Michał Araszkiewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ilaria Angela Amantea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saurabh Chakravarty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert van Doesburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maria Dymitruk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marie Garin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Leilani Gilpin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Daphne Odekerken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Seyedeh Sajedeh Salehi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michał Araszkiewicz.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Araszkiewicz, M., Amantea, I.A., Chakravarty, S. et al. ICAIL Doctoral Consortium, Montreal 2019. Artif Intell Law 28, 267–280 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-020-09267-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-020-09267-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation