A hybrid rule – neural approach for the automation of legal reasoning in the discretionary domain of family law in australia
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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Integrating Induction and Deduction for Finding Evidence of Discrimination.Salvatore Ruggieri, Dino Pedreschi & Franco Turini - 2010 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (1):1-43.
Developing Negotiation Decision Support Systems That Support Mediators: A Case Study of the Family_winner System. [REVIEW]Emilia Bellucci & John Zeleznikow - 2005 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (2):233-271.
Deliberative Discourse and Reasoning From Generic Argument Structures.John L. Yearwood & Andrew Stranieri - 2006 - AI and Society 23 (3):353-377.
Intelligent Computer Evaluation of Offender's Previous Record.Uri J. Schild & Ruth Kannai - 2005 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (3-4):373-405.
Modeling the Evolution of Legal Discretion. An Artificial Intelligence Approach.Ruth Kannai, Uri Schild & John Zeleznikow - 2007 - Ratio Juris 20 (4):530-558.
Similar books and articles
From a Rule-Based Conception to Dynamic Patterns. Analyzing the Self-Organization of Legal Systems.Daniéle Bourcier & Gérard Clergue - 1999 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):211-225.
The IKBALS Project: Multi-Modal Reasoning in Legal Knowledge Based Systems. [REVIEW]John Zeleznikow, George Vossos & Daniel Hunter - 1993 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (3):169-203.
Out of Their Minds: Legal Theory in Neural Networks. [REVIEW]Hunter Dan - 1999 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):129-151.
Introduction: From Legal Theories to Neural Networks and Fuzzy Reasoning. [REVIEW]Lothar Philipps & Giovanni Sartor - 1999 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):115-128.
Issue Spotting in CHASER.Barbara Cuthill & Robert McCartney - 1993 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (2):83-111.
Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning.Neil MacCormick - 2005 - Oxford University Press.
An Australian Perspective on Research and Development Required for the Construction of Applied Legal Decision Support Systems.John Zeleznikow - 2002 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (4):237-260.
Hard Cases: A Procedural Approach. [REVIEW]Jaap C. Hage, Ronald Leenes & Arno R. Lodder - 1993 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (2):113-167.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads20 ( #242,936 of 2,153,861 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #398,005 of 2,153,861 )
How can I increase my downloads?