HYPO’S legacy: introduction to the virtual special issue
Tóm tắt
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Al-Abdulkarim L (2016) Representation of case law for argumentative reasoning. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool
Al-Abdulkarim L, Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2013) From oral hearing to opinion in the US Supreme Court. In: Legal knowledge and information systems—JURIX 2013: the twenty-sixth annual conference, pp 1–10
Al-Abdulkarim L, Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2015a) Evaluating the use of abstract dialectical frameworks to represent case law. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 156–160
Al-Abdulkarim L, Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2015b) Factors, issues and values: revisiting reasoning with cases. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 3–12
Al-Abdulkarim L, Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2016a) Accommodating change. Artif Intell Law 24(4):409–427
Al-Abdulkarim L, Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2016b) Angelic secrets: bridging from factors to facts in US Trade Secrets. In: Legal knowledge and information systems—JURIX 2016: the twenty-ninth annual conference, pp 113–118
Al-Abdulkarim L, Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2016c) A methodology for designing systems to reason with legal cases using abstract dialectical frameworks. Artif Intell Law 24(1):1–49
Al-Abdulkarim L, Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2016d) Statement types in legal argument. In: Legal knowledge and information systems—JURIX 2016: the twenty-ninth annual conference, pp 3–12
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. doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.93
Aleven V (1997) Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh
Aleven V (2003) Using background knowledge in case-based legal reasoning: a computational model and an intelligent learning environment. Artif Intell 150(1–2):183–237
Aleven V, Ashley KD (1993) What law students need to know to win. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 152–161
Aleven V, Ashley KD (1995) Doing things with factors. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 31–41
Alexander L (1989) Constrained by precedent. South Calif Law Rev 63:1–64
Allen M, Bench-Capon T, Staniford G (2000) A multi-agent legal argument generator. In: Proceedings of the 11th international workshop on database and expert systems applications, IEEE, pp 1080–1084
Araszkiewicz M (2011) Analogy, similarity and factors. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 101–105
Araszkiewicz M, Łopatkiewicz A, Zienkiewicz A, Zurek T (2015) Representation of an actual divorce dispute in the parenting plan support system. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 166–170
Ashley KD (1989) Toward a computational theory of arguing with precedents. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 93–102
Ashley KD (1990) Modeling legal arguments: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. MIT press, Cambridge
Ashley KD (2009) Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological, and hypothetical legal reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 1–10
Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S (2009) Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artif Intell Law 17(2):125–165
Ashley KD, Rissland EL (1987) But, see, accord: generating blue book citations in hypo. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 67–74
Ashley KD, Lynch C, Pinkwart N, Aleven V (2008) A process model of legal argument with hypotheticals. In: Legal knowledge and information systems: JURIX 2015: the twenty-first annual conference, pp 1–10
Atkinson K (2012) Introduction to special issue on modelling Popov v. Hayashi. Artif Intell Law 20(1):1–14
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2005) Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning. Artif Intell Law 13(1):93–131
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2007) Argumentation and standards of proof. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 107–116
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, Cartwright D, Wyner A (2011) Semantic models for policy deliberation. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 81–90
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, McBurney P (2006) PARMENIDES: facilitating deliberation in democracies. Artif Intell Law 14(4):261–275
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, Prakken H, Wyner A (2013) Argumentation schemes for reasoning about factors with dimensions. In: Legal knowledge and information systems—JURIX 2013: the twenty-sixth annual conference, pp 39–48
Austin JL, Warnock GJ (1962) Sense and sensibilia. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bench-Capon T (1991) Practical legal expert systems: the relation between a formalisation of law and expert knowledge. Computers, Law and AI, Ablex, New York
Bench-Capon T (1993) Neural networks and open texture. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 292–297
Bench-Capon T (1997) Arguing with cases. In: Legal knowledge and information systems—JURIX 1997: the tenth annual conference, pp 85–100
Bench-Capon T (1999) Some observations on modelling case based reasoning with formal argument models. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 36–42
Bench-Capon T (2002) The missing link revisited: the role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):79–94
Bench-Capon T (2003a) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J Log Comput 13(3):429–448
Bench-Capon T (2003b) Try to see it my way: modelling persuasion in legal discourse. Artif Intell Law 11(4):271–287
Bench-Capon T (2011) Relating values in a series of supreme court decisions. In: Legal knowledge and information systems—JURIX 2011: the twenty-fourth annual conference, pp 13–22
Bench-Capon T (2012) Representing Popov v Hayashi with dimensions and factors. Artif Intell Law 20(1):15–35
Bench-Capon T, Bex F (2015) Cases and stories, dimensions and scripts. In: Legal knowledge and information systems: JURIX 2015: the twenty-eighth annual conference, vol 279, IOS Press, pp 11–20
Bench-Capon T, Gordon T (2015) Two tools for prototyping legal CBR. In: Legal knowledge and information systems—JURIX 2015: the twenty-eighth annual conference, pp 177–178
Bench-Capon T, Modgil S (2017) Norms and value based reasoning: justifying compliance and violation. Artif Intell Law 25(1):1–36
Bench-Capon T, Prakken H (2010) Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artif Intell Law 18(2):153–174
Bench-Capon T, Rissland E (2001) Back to the future: Dimensions revisited. In: Legal knowledge and information systems—JURIX, vol 2001, pp 41–52
Bench-Capon T, Sartor G (2000) Using values and theories to resolve disagreement in law. In: Legal knowledge and information systems—JURIX 1997: the thirteenth annual conference, pp 73–84
Bench-Capon T, Sartor G (2001) Theory based explanation of case law domains. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 12–21
Bench-Capon T, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1):97–143
Bench-Capon T, Araszkiewicz M, Ashley K, Atkinson K, Bex F, Borges F, Bourcier D, Bourgine P, Conrad JG, Francesconi E et al (2012) A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law. Artif Intell Law 20(3):215–319
Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K, Chorley A (2005) Persuasion and value in legal argument. J Log Comput 15(6):1075–1097
Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K, Wyner A (2015) Using argumentation to structure e-participation in policy making. In: Hameurlain A, Küng J, Wagner R, Decker H, Lhotska L, Link S (eds) Transactions on large-scale data-and knowledge-centered systems XVIII. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–29
Bench-Capon T, Freeman JB, Hohmann H, Prakken H (2003) Computational models, argumentation theories and legal practice. In: Reed C, Norman T (eds) Argumentation machines. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 85–120
Bench-Capon T, Geldard T, Leng P (2000) A method for the computational modelling of dialectical argument with dialogue games. Artif Intell Law 8(2–3):233–254
Bench-Capon T, Prakken H, Visser W (2011) Argument schemes for two-phase democratic deliberation. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 21–30
Berman DH (1991) Developer’s choice in the legal domain: the Sisyphean journey with CBR or down hill with rules (a working paper for the case-rules panel at the third international conference on artificial intelligence and law). In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 307–309
Berman DH, Hafner CD (1991) Incorporating procedural context into a model of case-based legal reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 12–20
Berman DH, Hafner CD (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 50–59
Berman DH, Hafner CD (1995) Understanding precedents in a temporal context of evolving legal doctrine. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 42–51
Bex F (2011) Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: a formal hybrid theory, vol 92. Springer, Dordrecht
Branting LK (1991) Reasoning with portions of precedents. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 145–154
Breuker J, Den Haan N (1991) Separating world and regulation knowledge: where is the logic. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 92–97
Bruninghaus S, Ashley KD (2003a) Predicting outcomes of case based legal arguments. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 233–242
Bruninghaus S, Ashley KD (2003b) A predictive role for intermediate legal concepts. In: Legal knowledge and information systems: JURIX 2003: the sixteenth annual conference, ISO Press, pp 153–162
Callan JP, Croft WB, Harding SM (1992) The INQUERY retrieval system. In: Min Tjoa A, Ramas I (eds) Database and expert systems applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 78–83
Chorley A, Bench-Capon T (2005a) Agatha: using heuristic search to automate the construction of case law theories. Artif Intell Law 13(1):9–51
Chorley A, Bench-Capon T (2005b) An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application. Artif Intell Law 13(3–4):323–371
Christie G (2000) The notion of an ideal audience in legal argument, vol 45. Springer, Law and Philsophy Library, Dordrecht
Conrad JG, Zeleznikow J (2015) The role of evaluation in AI and Law: an examination of its different forms in the AI and Law journal. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 181–186
Daniels JJ, Rissland EL (1997) Finding legally relevant passages in case opinions. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 39–46
Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–357
Farley AM, Freeman K (1995) Burden of proof in legal argumentation. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 156–164
Gardner A (1987) An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning. MIT press, Cambridge
Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan I, Simari G (eds) Argumentation and artificial intelligence. Springer, Dordrecht
Gordon TF, Walton D (2006) Pierson vs. Post revisited—a reconstruction using the Carneades argumentation framework. In: Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2006, pp 208–219
Gordon TF, Walton D (2016) Formalizing balancing arguments. In: Computational models of argument—proceedings of COMMA 2016, pp 327–338
Grabmair M (2017) Predicting trade secret case outcomes using argument schemes and learned quantitative value effect tradeffs. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM (in Press)
Grabmair M, Ashley KD (2011) Facilitating case comparison using value judgments and intermediate legal concepts. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 161–170
Grabmair M, Ashley KD (2013) Using event progression to enhance purposive argumentation in the value judgment formalism. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 73–82
Grasso F, Cawsey A, Jones R (2000) Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. Int J Hum Comput Stud 53(6):1077–1115
Greenwood K, Bench-Capon T, McBurney P (2003) Towards a computational account of persuasion in law. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 22–31
Hafner CD, Berman DH (2002) The role of context in case-based legal reasoning: teleological, temporal, and procedural. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):19–64
Hage J (1993) Monological reason-based logic: a low level integration of rule-based reasoning and case-based reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 30–39
Hamblin CL (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, London
Henderson J, Bench-Capon T (2001) Dynamic arguments in a case law domain. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 60–69
Horty JF (1999) Precedent, deontic logic, and inheritance. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 63–72
Horty JF (2011a) Reasons and precedent. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 41–50
Horty JF, Bench-Capon TJ (2012) A factor-based definition of precedential constraint. Artif Intell Law 20(2):181–214
Johnston B, Governatori G (2003) Induction of defeasible logic theories in the legal domain. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 204–213
Lindahl L, Odelstad J (2008) Intermediaries and intervenients in normative systems. J Appl Log 6(2):229–250
Marshall CC (1989) Representing the structure of a legal argument. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 121–127
McCarty LT (1995) An implementation of Eisner v. Macomber. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 276–286
McLaren B, Ashley K (1999) Case representation, acquisition, and retrieval in sirocco. In: International conference on case-based reasoning, Springer, pp 248–262
Modgil S, Bench-Capon T (2010) Integrating dialectical and accrual modes of argumentation. In: Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp 335–346
Modgil S, Prakken H (2014) The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argum Comput 5(1):31–62
Možina M, Žabkar J, Bench-Capon T, Bratko I (2005) Argument based machine learning applied to law. Artif Intell Law 13(1):53–73
Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1971) The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame
Prakken H (2002) An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):113–133
Prakken H (2005) A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and Law, ACM, pp 85–94
Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):331–368
Prakken H, Sartor G (1998) Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artif Intell Law 6(3–4):231–287
Prakken H, Wyner A, Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K (2015) A formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+. J Log Comput 25(5):1141–1166
Rigoni A (2015) An improved factor based approach to precedential constraint. Artif Intell Law 23(2):133–160
Rissland EL (1980) Example generation. In: Third biennial conference of the canadian society for computational studies of intelligence, pp 280–288
Rissland EL (1983) Examples in legal reasoning: legal hypotheticals. In: Proceedings of the 8th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 90–93
Rissland EL (1984) The ubiquitous dialectic. In: Proceedings of the sixth European conference on artificial intelligence, pp 367–372
Rissland EL (1985) AI and legal reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 9th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, vol 2, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp 1254–1260
Rissland EL (1989) Dimension-based analysis of hypotheticals from supreme court oral argument. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 111–120
Rissland EL, Ashley KD (1987) A case-based system for trade secrets law. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 60–66
Rissland EL, Daniels JJ (1995) A hybrid CBR-IR approach to legal information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 52–61
Rissland EL, Daniels JJ (1996) The synergistic application of CBR to IR. Artif Intell Rev 10(5–6):441–475
Rissland EL, Skalak DB (1989a) Combining case-based and rule-based reasoning: a heuristic approach. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 524–530
Rissland EL, Skalak DB (1989b) Interpreting statutory predicates. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 46–53
Rissland EL, Skalak DB (1991) Cabaret: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. Int J Man Mach Stud 34(6):839–887
Rissland EL, Soloway E (1980) Overview of an example generation system. In: Proceedings of the 1st annual national conference on artificial intelligence, pp 256–258
Rissland E. L, Xu X (2011) Catching gray cygnets: an initial exploration. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 151–160
Rissland EL, Skalak DB, Friedman MT (1993) Bankxx: a program to generate argument through case-base research. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 117–124
Rissland EL, Skalak DB, Friedman MT (1996) Bankxx: supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval. Artif Intell Law 4(1):1–71
Rissland EL, Skalak DB, Friedman MT (1997) Evaluating a legal argument program: the bankxx experiments. Artif Intell Law 5(1–2):1–74
Rissland EL, Valcarce EM, Ashley KD (1984) Explaining and arguing with examples. In: Proceedings of the fourth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI Press, pp 288–294
Sartor G (2010) Doing justice to rights and values: teleological reasoning and proportionality. Artif Intell Law 18(2):175–215
Schank R, Abelson R (1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding, an inquiry into human knowledge structures. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Sergot MJ, Sadri F, Kowalski RA, Kriwaczek F, Hammond P, Cory HT (1986) The British Nationality Act as a logic program. Commun ACM 29(5):370–386
Skalak DB, Rissland EL (1991) Argument moves in a rule-guided domain. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 1–11
Skalak DB, Rissland EL (1992) Arguments and cases: an inevitable intertwining. Artif Intell Law 1(1):3–44
Smith J, Deedman C (1987) The application of expert systems technology to case-based law. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 84–93
Timmer ST, Meyer J.-J.C., Prakken H, Renooij S, Verheij B (2015) A structure-guided approach to capturing bayesian reasoning about legal evidence in argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 109–118
Toulmin S (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Verheij B (1995) Arguments and defeat in argument-based nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Portuguese conference on artificial intelligence, Springer, pp 213–224
Verheij B (2016) Formalizing value-guided argumentation for ethical systems design. Artif Intell Law 24(4):387–407
Verheij B, Hage JC, Van Den Herik HJ (1998) An integrated view on rules and principles. Artif Intell Law 6(1):3–26
Walton D (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah
Wardeh M, Bench-Capon T, Coenen F (2009) Padua: a protocol for argumentation dialogue using association rules. Artif Intell Law 17(3):183–215
Wyner A, Bench-Capon T (2007) Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In: Legal knowledge and information systems—JURIX 2013: the twentieth annual conference, pp 139–149,
Wyner A, Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K (2011) Towards formalising argumentation about legal cases. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 1–10