lawyer qualification exanli- nation. We have also had lawyers evaluate the .... the street, where. Bill froze and died. In this case, it is to difficult to judge. Tom's.
A
Computational
Katsumi
Nitta,
Institute
for
4-28,
Model
Stephen
New
Mita
for
Wong,
Generation
l-chorne,
Trial
Yoshihisa
Minato-ku,
Technology
Tokyo
108,
the domain
of criminal
HELIC-11 model
for
legal
soning). seven
of this
This key
facts
of a new
components:
various
meta
and
The
and
The
the
situation,
and
selects
the
best
one for
ends
when
any
one
agent
Certain
debate
in this tional
paper model
system
for
trial
the
make are
agent
The
claim,
tain
a move.
con~puta-
output
and
of old
on the
defendant’s
ity
form
to the
root
and
matching.
other
opinions.
of a new case.
In addition,
lawyer
We have also had lawyers drew
Cer-
(prosecutor’s)
arguments
arguments.
cases in the Japanme
Each
is the conclusion
on the plaintiff’s
while
They
based
is a set of arguments.
resultant
of HELIC-11.
rules
to the case base
of case rules,
facts
a
rule
of logical
by applying
refers
tree whose
cases
and
to the
form
by similarity
are based
inlpleIt con-
refers
in the
cases in the
system (PI M).
base engine
conclusions
leaves are the initial
opinions
nation.
reasoning.
- a rule
rules
of HELIC-11
arguments
several
based
base engine
hypotheses
is an inference
assigned
knowledge-based
legal
92].
Machine
case base engine old
legal
and whose
game
design
contains
argument
rule legal
draws The
generates
eugines
The
contains
and
which
illustrated
the
used in the
a parallel
and
recognizes
The
which
formulas
et al.
Inference
inference
deductively.
in this
One
move.
In addition,
-
goals
to refute
model
has been
of HELICII
agents,
agent
no longer
base,
[Nitta
is a logic-programming
case base engine.
re-
law
on the Parallel
sists of two
cases,
process game.
next
of this
examples.
presented
development
can
strategies with
the
old
explicit
other
candidates
rea-
matching
opposing
to a two-agent
mented
contains
case,
two
with
trial
model
argumentation
an argument. generates
(i.e.
similarity
the defendant,
be likened
forward
rules,
implications,
strategies.
can
puts
law
based
lations,
model
in criminal
a computational
logic-programming
knowledge,
the plaintiff
is to describe
reasoning
domain
reasoning
paper
Japan
@icot.or.jp
Abstract purpose
Ohtake
Computer
{nitta,wong,ohtake}
The
Reasoning
are
based
no priority HELIC-11
qualification
evaluate
is
solved exanli-
the practical-
two observations
from
their
evaluation. First,
Introduction
1 The
primary
is statutes. rules,
source Since
the mode
deduction. discretionary fixed
until
is known study and
of legal rules,
legal they
of legal
a statute
Legal
with
statutes
however,
often
contain
and their to actual
we at ICOT reasoning
countries
of a set of legal
have system,
problem.
been
To
HELIC-11,
in
all or parL of iks malenal is granted provided distribumd for direct commercial advantage, tie tide of the publication and its date appear, and by permission of the Association for Computing or to refubfish, requires a fee and/or specific
1993 ACM
a comparison
Such
the
the weakness
refutation
reasoning (i.e.,
In court,
parties
both
individual aim
to secure
sible
in court.
The
interpretation
that
agent
is, thus, this
simpler,
biased
goal-driven
more
is obtained
reasoning
during
is important
if we and to
parties.
Second, instead
facts
of
a new
plaintiff,
case).
arguments for
serious
of legal
towards
manageable
and ar-
be goal-driven
the most
A comp!ex
it
to present
The
initially
formation 2 ()
are trying
would
cal and dynamic.
$1.50
the
goals.
ref-
standpoints
of the
should
through
sLIch as the in arguments,
of each argument
strategies proc=~
of data-driven
into 0-89791 -606-9/93/0006/0020
premises.
Moreover,
pnnlssion,
@
gument
to achieve
designing
is included
the different
the legal
This
information,
was not eaay to compare
predict
and
are not
cases in court.
relevant
cases and opinions,
are to understand
is usually vague
meaninga
as the open texture
a legal
Penmsnon to copy withouz fes *z! the copies are not made or AC\l copyrighl no:ice and :k notice is given [hat copying k >fachmery. To copy othcmuse,
in most
consists
reasoning
are applied
a problem,
developing
knowledge often
concepts
in the literature
such
although
erenced
example, crime
pos-
knowledge
achieving
this
process
goal is usually
by goal.
is hierarchidecomposed
subgoals,
and
as new
the debate,
the
agent
inmay
shift
the initial
To take
into
HELIC-11
are
of legal
modeling le,
the
less severe.
these two observations,
notion
many
good
debate,
but,
of legal
HYPO
to something
account
with
There ject
goal
of two-agent research
projects
few of them
agents
[Rissland
in their
et al.
we extend
on
involve
prototypes.
87] [Ashley
the
by comparing
and contrasting
old cases.
HYPO
can treat
change
points
extent,
it does not discuss
cepts.
Furthermore,
set of good computational dress
viewpoints
and
The
provide
model.
key
debate
paper
3 explains
into
and Section
a
to adincorpo-
legal
argumen-
Section
computational
strategies
4 shows
5 presents
a
for debate.
of the
debate
Section
to select
attempts
1
con-
we introduce
is as follows.
components
components,
Though
concepts,
and opinions
of this
the
Section
on these
of legal
a set of strategies
organization
2 introduces
difiicult
that
that
build
an example
of a
the conclusion. Figllre
2
Computational
In this
section,
guides
the
Figure
1 presents
The
model,
and this
M,
]: The
a computational
development architecture
consists
model
of
new
where
Y
[Ueda
and Chikayama
Guarded
of HELIC-11.
(L),
as domain
Z is meta
hypotheses, lation,
rules
*
consists
Horn
fendant
goal
of the
(D)
When
and meta
in the form To and
ccmeri The
are
(the in
the
and
rules
rules
Z.
Then,
repeated
they
agent
and
until
there
generate
the
is
meta no
goal
is Guarded
knowledge
bases
of
be
programming
in a new case is a ground
the
Flat
following
subsec-
Facts predicate.
Each
predi-
“objectID”
to the
form:
objected,
list-o
instance
is an identifier of the
of “attribute= For example,
D.
These
pro-
f.slots)
which
predicate,
variable”
and
is used “list
to refer
of slots”
is a
pairs.
the predicate
orun(objectID, where
generated.
language
object-oriented
of name
own
is defined
as
follows.
goal
are
has the following
where
and
other
Horn
HELIC-11
A fact
list
a
an argument
to
of M
logic
(+C
rules.
Case
predicate.name(
de-
is sent to agent
language
parallel
on
and
P generates
D generates
and
in the
New
such
(+’),
(P)
agent
which
each component
2.1
cate
re-
relations
it to implicators
tree,
argument,
is based
making
matching
implication
in 7,
and sends
it to irnplicators
object
logic ten
case is given
this
sends
includes legal
as interpretation
/ prosecutor
of an inference
attack
which and
agents.
a new
which
case, C is a set
(H)
and rule
plaintiff
to be achieved
+’)
the new knowledge
of a set of similarity
(+=)
90]
clause).
tions.
of a set of implication
as case implication S consists
S >>,
postulates
such
= consists
+-,
about
cases, V is domain
such
HELIC-11
of a 7-tuple:
C, D, T, =,
is a set of facts
of old legal entities
F,
of new
that
HELIC-11.
We describe
