Four Challenges for a ComputationalModel of Legal PrecedentL

Identifying the open research issues in a eld is a necessary step for progress in that eld. This paper describes four open research problems in computational models of precedent-based legal reasoning: relating case representation to precedent use; modeling the selection and construction of both arguments based on pairwise case comparison and multiple-precedent arguments; modeling the process whereby purposes, policies, and principles are used in case similarity assessment ; and extending the applicability of precedents to tasks other than classiication.

[1]  Paul E. Johnson,et al.  Contextual relevance in analogical reasoning: a model of legal argument , 1989 .

[2]  Kristian J. Hammond,et al.  Case-based planning: an integrated theory of planning, learning and memory , 1986 .

[3]  Diane J. Cook.  The Base Selection Task in Analogical Planning , 1991, IJCAI.

[4]  Kevin D. Ashley.  Modeling legal argument - reasoning with cases and hypotheticals , 1991, Artificial intelligence and legal reasoning.

[5]  K. Branting,et al.  Building Explanations from Rules and Structured Cases , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[6]  Ernest Davis,et al.  Representations of commonsense knowledge , 2014, notThenot Morgan Kaufmann series in representation and reasoning.

[7]  Jeffrey A. Meldman,et al.  A preliminary study in computer-aided legal analysis , 1975 .

[8]  L. Karl Brenting,et al.  Reasoning with portions of precedents , 1991, ICAIL '91.

[9]  Karl Branting,et al.  Integrating rules and precedents for classification and explanation: automating legal analysis , 1990 .

[10]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  Retrieval and organizational strategies in conceptual memory: a computer model , 1980 .

[11]  Kevin D. Ashley.  Case-based reasoning and its implications for legal expert systems , 1992, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[12]  L. Thorne McCarty,et al.  A language for legal Discourse I. basic features , 1989, ICAIL '89.

[13]  A. A. Martino,et al.  Expert systems in law , 1992 .

[14]  E. Mckaay,et al.  Predicting judicial decisions: The nearest neighbor rule and visual representa-tion of case patterns , 1974 .

[15]  Patrick Henry Winston,et al.  Learning and reasoning by analogy , 1980, CACM.

[16]  Jeffrey Van Baalen.  Automated Design of Specialized Representations , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[17]  Herbert Hovenkamp.  Jurisprudence , 2019, The Nature and Sources of the Law by John Chipman Gray.

[18]  Karl Branting,et al.  A computational model of ratio decidendi , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[19]  Jr. Robert Lee Simpson,et al.  A computer model of case-based reasoning in problem solving: an investigation in the domain of dispute mediation (analogy, machine learning, conceptual memory) , 1985 .

[20]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Mechanisms of Analogical Learning. , 1987 .

[21]  Roger A. Shiner,et al.  The Authority of Law , 1983 .

[22]  M. Radin.  The Nature of the Judicial Process The Nature of the Judicial Process , 2018 .

[23]  Nicole Fruehauf,et al.  An Artificial Intelligence Approach To Legal Reasoning , 2016 .

[24]  Paul Thagard,et al.  Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[25]  Ray Bareiss,et al.  Concept Learning and Heuristic Classification in WeakTtheory Domains , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[26]  Carole D. Hafner,et al.  Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link , 1993, ICAIL '93.