A typology of moves involved in case comparison

This paper is about the process of case comparison as it takes place in case-based reasoning, and its purpose is to do a systematic investigation into the types of move involved in this process. Starting with a simple model of the roles that case facts can play in the establishment of a decision, a general framework is sketched within which these move types can be accommodated. The move types that this simple model allows for are discussed and it is shown how each of them relates to one or more of the possible outcomes of the comparison process. Then the model is extended by introducing a number of more complex roles for case facts. This extension turns out to allow for new move types involved in case comparison, and a corresponding typology of new moves is formulated. Finally, after a discussion of two other existing approaches it turns out that these do not fully account for the process of case comparison as described in this paper.

[1]  A. C. Roth,et al.  New reasoning patterns in analogical legal case-based reasoning: an informal investigation , 2001 .

[2]  Kevin D. Ashley.  Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals in HYPO , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[3]  Vincent A. W. M. M. Aleven,et al.  Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples , 1997 .

[4]  Robert Alexy.  Henry Prakken (1997), Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law , 2000 .

[5]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Book review: Formalism and interpretation in the logic of law , 2000 .

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

[7]  J. Pollock.  Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person , 1995 .

[8]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law , 1997 .

[9]  H. B. Verheij.  Rules, reasons, arguments : formal studies of argumentation and defeat , 1996 .

[10]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument , 1997 .

[11]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Some observations on modelling case based reasoning with formal argument models , 1999, ICAIL '99.

[12]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game , 1998 .

[13]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Arguing With Cases , 1997 .

[14]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  How Different Is Different? Arguing About the Significance of Similarities and Differences , 1996, EWCBR.

[15]  Bart Verheij.  Dialectical Argumentation As A Heuristic For Courtroom Decision Making , 2000 .

[16]  L. J. Matthijssen.  Computerondersteuning bij straftoemeting. [Review of the book Computerondersteuning bij straftoemeting : de ontwikkeling van een databank, E.W. Oskamp, 1998] , 1998 .

[17]  Jaap Hage,et al.  Reasoning with Rules , 1997 .

[18]  J. Hage.  Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic , 1996 .

[19]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

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