Modeling Purposive Legal Argumentation and Case Outcome Prediction using Argument Schemes�in the Value Judgment FormalismGrabmair, Matthias (2016) Modeling Purposive Legal Argumentation and Case Outcome Prediction using Argument Schemes�in the Value Judgment Formalism. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. (Unpublished)
AbstractArtificial Intelligence and Law studies how legal reasoning can be formalized in order to eventually be able to develop systems that assist lawyers in the task of researching, drafting and evaluating arguments in a professional setting. To further this goal, researchers have been developing systems, which, to a limited extent, autonomously engage in legal reasoning, and argumentation on closed domains. This dissertation presents the Value Judgment Formalism and its experimental implementation in the VJAP system, which is capable of arguing about, and predicting outcomes of, a set of trade secret misappropriation cases. VJAP argues about cases by creating an argument graph for each case using a set of argument schemes. These schemes use a representation of values underlying trade secret law and effects of facts on these values. VJAP argumentatively balances effects in the given case and analogizes it to individual precedents and the value tradeoffs in those precedents. It predicts case outcomes using a confidence measure computed from the argument graph and generates textual legal arguments justifying its predictions. The confidence propagation uses quantitative weights assigned to effects of facts on values. VJAP automatically learns these weights from past cases using an iterative optimization method. The experimental evaluation shows that VJAP generates case-based legal arguments that make plausible and intelligent-appearing use of precedents to reason about a case in terms of differences and similarities to a precedent and the value tradeoffs that both contain. VJAP’s prediction performance is promising when compared to machine learning algorithms, which do not generate legal arguments. Due to the small case base, however, the assessment of prediction performance was not statistically rigorous. VJAP exhibits argumentation and prediction behavior that, to some extent, resembles phenomena in real case-based legal reasoning, such as realistically appearing citation graphs. The VJAP system and experiment demonstrate that it is possible to effectively combine symbolic knowledge and inference with quantitative confidence propagation. In AI\&Law, such systems can embrace the structure of legal reasoning and learn quantitative information about the domain from prior cases, as well as apply this information in a structurally realistic way in the context of new cases. Share
Details
MetricsMonthly Views for the past 3 yearsPlum AnalyticsActions (login required)
|
![[img]](https://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png)
![[feed]](/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}