research-article

Analogy, similarity and factors

Author:

Michał AraszkiewiczAuthors Info & Claims

ICAIL '11: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Pages 101 - 105

https://doi.org/10.1145/2018358.2018372

Published: 06 June 2011 Publication History

Abstract

Analogy has been considered in AI and law primarily in relation to reasoning from precedent cases rather than reasoning from statutes. Where a statutory provision does not apply to a case, the principle of e contrario, that if the case is not covered by the rule the negation of the conclusion can be taken as established, has typically been assumed to apply. There are, however, cases where analogy is an appropriate way to bring a case under a statutory rule. In this paper we discuss using analogy in reasoning with states, and where this should be avoided and e contrario followed. Our account will be based on the notion of factors as developed in AI and law case based reasoning.

References

[1]

Aleven V. 1997. Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh Graduate Program in Intelligent Systems.

Digital Library

[2]

Aleven V., Ashley K. D. 1995. Doing Things with Factors. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL). ACM, New York, 31--41

Digital Library

[3]

Alexy R. 1989. A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, {trans. R. Adler, N. MacCormick}, Oxford: Clarendon Press, /1^st German ed. 1978/.

[4]

Alexy R. 2002, A Theory of Constitutional Rights, transl. J. Rivers, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[5]

Ashley K. D. 1990. Modelling Legal Argument. Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Digital Library

[6]

Bench-Capon T. 2002. The missing link revisited: The role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10, 79--94

Digital Library

[7]

Bench-Capon T., Rissland, E. 2001. Back to the Future. Dimensions Revisited. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX). IOS, Amsterdam, 41--52

[8]

Bench-Capon T., Sartor G. 2003. A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values. Artificial Intelligence 150, 97--142.

Digital Library

[9]

Berman D. H., Hafner C. D. 1993. Representing Teleological Structure in Case-Based Reasoning: The Missing Link. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL). ACM, New York, 50--59

Digital Library

[10]

Brożek B. 2007. Rationality and Discourse. Towards a Normative Model of Applying Law. Wolters Kluwer Poland: Warsaw.

[11]

Hage J. C. 1997. Reasoning with rules, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

[12]

Hage J. C. 2005. The Logic of Analogy in the Law. Argumentation 19, 401--415.

[13]

Hage J. C. 2005. Studies in Legal Logic, Springer, Berlin.

[14]

MacCormick N., Summers R. 1991. Interpretation and Justification. In MacCormick N., Summers R. (eds.) 1991. Interpreting Statutes. A comparative study, Ashgate, Dartmouth, 511--544.

[15]

Peczenik A. 2008. On Law and Reason, 2^nd ed., Springer, (1^st ed. 1989, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London).

[16]

Prakken H. 1997. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Digital Library

[17]

Prakken H. 2002. An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10, 113--133

Digital Library

[18]

Prakken H., Sartor G. 1998. Modeling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6: 231--287.

Digital Library

[19]

Rissland E. L., Ashley K. D. 2002. A note on dimensions and factors. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10, 65--77

Digital Library

[20]

Sartor G. 2002. Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10, 95--112

Digital Library

[21]

Sartor G., 2005. Legal Reasoning. A Cognitive Approach to the Law. A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence (ed. Pattaro E.), Vol. 5. Springer, Dordrecht

[22]

Sergot M., Sadri F., Kowalski R., Kriwaczek F., Hammond P., Cory H. T. 1986. The British Nationality Act as a Logic Program. Communications ACM 29. 370--386

Digital Library

Cited By

Thilakarathne DAl Haider NBosman J(2020)Human-Centred Automated Reasoning for Regulatory Reporting via Knowledge-Driven ComputingTrends in Artificial Intelligence Theory and Applications. Artificial Intelligence Practices10.1007/978-3-030-55789-8_35(393-406)Online publication date: 4-Sep-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55789-8_35
Rigoni A(2018)Representing dimensions within the reason model of precedentArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-017-9216-726:1(1-22)Online publication date: 26-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10506-017-9216-7
Bench-Capon T(2017)HYPO’S legacy: introduction to the virtual special issueArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-017-9201-125:2(205-250)Online publication date: 2-Jun-2017
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9201-1
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Analogy in Decision Making

In the context of decision making under uncertainty, I formalize the concept of analogy: an analogy between two decision problems is a mapping that transforms one problem into the other while preserving the problem’s structure. After identifying the basic ...
Towards Analogy-Based Explanations in Machine Learning
Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence
Abstract
Principles of analogical reasoning have recently been applied in the context of machine learning, for example to develop new methods for classification and preference learning. In this paper, we argue that, while analogical reasoning is certainly ...
Analogy as Integrating Framework for Human-Level Reasoning
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Artificial General Intelligence 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference

Human-level reasoning is manifold and comprises a wide variety of different reasoning mechanisms. So far, artificial intelligence has focused mainly on using the classical approaches deduction, induction, and abduction to enable machines with reasoning ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

ICAIL '11: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

June 2011

270 pages

ISBN:9781450307550

DOI:10.1145/2018358

Conference Chair:
Kevin Ashley
University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Pittsburgh, PA MAIL@[email protected]
,
Program Chair:
Tom van Engers
Leibniz Center for Law, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands MAIL@[email protected]

Copyright © 2011 Author.

Sponsors

The International Association for Artificial Intelligence and Law
AAAI: Am Assoc for Artifical Intelligence
PittLaw: U. of Pittsburgh School of Law

In-Cooperation

SIGAI: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 06 June 2011

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

ICAIL '11

Sponsor:

AAAI
PittLaw

ICAIL '11: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

June 6 - 10, 2011

Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

5
Total Citations
View Citations
136
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)11
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

Reflects downloads up to 01 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Thilakarathne DAl Haider NBosman J(2020)Human-Centred Automated Reasoning for Regulatory Reporting via Knowledge-Driven ComputingTrends in Artificial Intelligence Theory and Applications. Artificial Intelligence Practices10.1007/978-3-030-55789-8_35(393-406)Online publication date: 4-Sep-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55789-8_35
Rigoni A(2018)Representing dimensions within the reason model of precedentArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-017-9216-726:1(1-22)Online publication date: 26-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10506-017-9216-7
Bench-Capon T(2017)HYPO’S legacy: introduction to the virtual special issueArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-017-9201-125:2(205-250)Online publication date: 2-Jun-2017
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9201-1
Koszowy MAraszkiewicz M(2014)The Lvov–Warsaw School as a Source of Inspiration for Argumentation TheoryArgumentation10.1007/s10503-014-9321-728:3(283-300)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2014
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9321-7
Agnoloni TSagri MTiscornia D(2011)Balancing rights and values in the italian courtsProceedings of the 25th IVR Congress conference on AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems: models and ethical challenges for legal systems, legal language and legal ontologies, argumentation and software agents10.1007/978-3-642-35731-2_6(93-105)Online publication date: 15-Aug-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-35731-2_6

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten