786 research outputs found

    Legal analogical reasoning - the interplay between legal theory and artificial intelligence

    Get PDF
    This thesis examines and critiques attempts by researchers in the field of artificial intelligence and law to simulate legal analogical reasoning. Supported by an analysis of legal theoretical accounts of legal analogising, and an examination of approaches to simulating analogising developed in the field of artificial intelligence, it is argued that simulations of legal analogising fall far short of simulating all the is involved in human analogising. These examinations of legal theory and artificial intelligence inform a detailed critique of simulations of legal analogising. It is argued that simulations of legal analogising are limited in the kind of legal analogising they can simulate - these simulations cannot simulate the semantic flexibility that is characteristic of creative analogising. This thesis argues that one reason for current restrictions on simulations of legal analogising is that researchers in artificial intelligence and law have ignored the important role played by legal principles in legal analogising. It is argued that improvements in simulations of legal analogising will come from incorporating the influence of legal principles on legal analogising and that until researchers address this semantic flexibility and the role that legal principles play in generating it, simulations of legal analogising will be restricted and of benefit only for limited uses and in restricted areas of the law. Building on the analysis of legal theoretical accounts of legal reasoning and the examination of the processes of analogising, this thesis further argues that legal theoretical accounts of legal analogising are insufficient to account for legal analogising. This thesis argues that legal theorists have themselves ignored important aspects of legal analogising and hence that legal theoretical accounts of legal analogising are deficient. This thesis offers suggestions as to some of the modifications required in legal theory in order to better account for the processes of legal analogising

    Reusing cases to the automatic index assignment from textual documents

    Get PDF
    Paper presented at the Sixth German Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning: Foundations, Systems, and Applications, Rostock, Germany.This paper describes one solution developed to convert textual documents into formlike representations of cases. The experiences described by cases are textual descriptions of legal decisions. Indexing vocabulary and assignment theory contributed in gathering expert knowledge to define attributes and values as well as the required elements to employ template mining. Most index values are automatically extracted by the use of template mining. The multi-purpose index Theme is automatically assigned by reusing cases through an elaboration process. Seed cases are used to indicate values if the new case is a partial match to one in the case base

    Productization of legal services

    Get PDF
    Abstract. The goal of my research was to find out how to productize legal services. This study includes analyzing previous literature about productization of expert services and finding out special issues related to legal services. The goal of the study is to create a conceptual model for productization of legal service. The study includes literature review, regulation review, survey and interviews, which all are combined to find out, what is essential in legal services and how to productize them and successfully turn productized services to business models. Several key points were recognized in the literature review. There is a process to productize an expert service. Main points of this process are recognizing the value creation to customer, understanding the service structure and making service phases more repeatable and modular. There were also some special features related to legal services that must be taken account when productizing these services. There were also major issues about earning model in these productized services. Some issues were related to law, others to Finnish bar association rules and others to court processes. Main findings of this review were that it is possible to productize legal services and create an earning model around these services, but in field of legal services there are limitations to that. In the empirical part of the study there are two different methods: survey and interviews. Survey was related to acceptable costs in courts. The results of this survey were that it is currently difficult to create earning model around productized and automatized legal services that are related to litigation as there is no clear line whether these costs are accepted in courts. In interviews several productization experts with background of productizing legal services were interviewed as well as representatives of Ministry of justice, Finnis bar association and Finnish lawyers’ association. These interviews revealed some other key points related to productization of legal services. Main points were that some customers are looking for other value than just the documents or litigation, for example certainty and that there are major differences between productability of different fields of law. Two main points for preventing productization and automatization were recognized: reluctance to change processes in private businesses and in courts as well as current court process. It was possible to create conceptual model for productizing and automatizing legal services. The concept derives from model for productizing expert services, but it does also take account special features of legal services. Main phases of the model are recognizing the value created to customer, understanding the services structure, analyzing the earning models, analyzing scalability of service phases, restructuring services in order to make some service phases modular, analyzing the regulation and finally automatizing phases that are suitable for automatization in the viewpoints of regulation and value creation. Most important finding of the study are the main restrictions and limitations for how to productize legal service, as it differs from productizing expert services in general. Other main finding of the study is the conceptual model how to productize legal service. The model can be used in most law firms to restructure their business and create new productized legal services as well as turn them into profitable business. This model can be used in law firms, but also in other firms offering legal services or willing to do so. The study added previous research on productization of expert services by expanding it more in the field of law and specially in certain country. The results of the study can be used in future business and productization studies related to law firms, as well as productization of expert services. The results on limitations and requirements can be directly applied only in Finland, but conceptual model can be used regardless of nation.Lakipalvelun tuotteistaminen. Tiivistelmä. Tutkimuksen tavoitteena oli selvittää, miten lakipalvelut voidaan tuotteistaa. Tutkimus kattaa kirjallisuuskatsauksen asiantuntijapalveluiden tuotteistamisesta sekä lakipalveluiden erityispiirteistä. Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on luoda konsepti lakipalvelun tuotteistamiseksi. Tutkimuksen vaiheet ovat: kirjallisuuskatsaus, sääntelykatsaus, kyselytutkimus ja haastattelut. Näiden tulosten perusteella todetaan, mitkä ovat olennaiset seikat lakipalveluiden tuotteistamisessa, mikä on prosessi tuotteistamiseen ja miten luoda onnistuneita ansaintamalleja tuotteistettujen lakipalveluiden ympärille. Kirjallisuuskatsauksessa tunnistetaan useita avainseikkoja lakipalveluiden tuotteistamiseksi. Kirjallisuudessa on jo aiemmin käsitelty prosessia asiantuntijapalvelun tuotteistamiseksi. Tässä tärkeimpinä seikkoina ovat olleet arvonluonnin ymmärtäminen, palvelun rakenteen hahmottaminen sekä palvelun vaiheiden muuttaminen modulaarisemmaksi ja toistettavammaksi. Lakipalveluista tunnistetaan myös erityispiirteitä, mitkä täytyy huomioida niiden tuotteistamisessa. Merkittävimmät seikat liittyvät olemassa olevaan sääntelyyn eli lakeihin, Suomen asianajajaliiton sääntöihin sekä oikeuslaitoksen ja viranomaisen prosesseihin. Tämän vaiheen päälöydökset ovat, että on mahdollista tuotteistaa lakipalvelu ja luoda ansaintamalli tuotteistettujen palveluiden avulla, mutta lakipalveluiden osalta tähän on tiettyjä rajoituksia. Tutkimuksen empiriaosiossa käytetään kahta erilaista metodia: kyselytutkimusta ja haastatteluita. Kysely liittyy hyväksyttäviin kuluihin oikeudessa. Tämän kyselyn tuloksena on, että on haastavaa kehittää ansaintamalleja tuotteistettujen ja automatisoitujen lakipalveluiden ympärille, koska näistä aiheutuvien kulujen laskuttamisesta ei ole olemassa selkeää linjaa. Haastattelujen kohteena on sekä useita lakipalveluiden tuotteistamisen asiantuntijoita että edustajia oikeusministeriöistä, Suomen lakimiesliitosta ja Suomen asianajajaliitosta. Haastatteluiden perusteella tunnistetaan muita avaintekijöitä lakipalveluiden tuotteistamisessa. Yksi tällainen seikka on, että useat asiakkaat hakevat dokumenttien ja oikeudenkäyntipalvelun lisäksi varmuutta siitä, että asia on hoidettu. Toinen havaittu avaintekijä oli, että eri oikeudenalojen palveluiden välillä on merkittäviä eroja tuotteistamisen mahdollisuuksissa. Haastatteluissa havaittiin myös kaksi olennaista seikkaa, jotka estävät lakipalveluiden tuotteistamista: muutosvastarinta sekä yksityisellä että julkisella puolella ja nykyiset viranomaisprosessit. Näiden vaiheiden perusteella voidaan luoda konsepti lakipalvelun tuotteistamiseen ja automatisointiin. Konsepti johdetaan asiantuntijapalvelun tuotteistamisen konseptista, mutta siinä huomioidaan myös lakipalvelun erityispiirteet. Tämän mallin pääasialliset vaiheet ovat arvonluonnin tunnistaminen, palvelun rakenteen ymmärtäminen, ansaintamallin pohtiminen, skaalattavuuden analysointi, palvelun uudelleenjärjestely modulaarisuuden ja skaalattavuuden lisäämiseksi, sääntelyn analysointi ja lopulta automatisaatio. Malli huomioi automatisointikohteita valittaessa sekä sääntelyn että arvonluonnin näkökulmat. Tutkimuksen tärkein tulos on lakipalveluiden tuotteistamiseen liittyvät merkittävimmät rajoitukset ja esteet. Tämä löydös on merkittävä, koska lakipalvelun tuotteistaminen eroaa asiantuntijapalvelun tuotteistamisesta. Toinen merkittävä tulos on konsepti lakipalvelun tuotteistamiseen. Mallia voidaan käyttää useimmissa lakitoimistoissa liiketoiminnan uudelleenjärjestelyyn ja uusien tuotteistettujen lakipalveluiden ja niihin liittyvien ansaintamallien kehittämiseen. Mallia voidaan käyttää laki- ja asianajotoimistojen lisäksi myös muissa lakipalveluita tarjoavissa yrityksissä. Tutkimus tuotti uutta tietoa aiempaan tuotteistamista koskevaan tutkimukseen laajentamalla sitä lakialalle sekä kohdentamalla sitä tietylle maantieteelliselle alueelle. Tutkimuksen tuloksia voidaan käyttää tulevissa lakialaa koskevissa liiketoimintaa ja tuotteistamiseen käsittelevissä tutkimuksissa. Tutkimuksen tuloksia voidaan käyttää myös tutkittaessa asiantuntijapalveluiden tuotteistamista pidemmälle. Osa tuloksista koskee vain Suomea johtuen sääntelyjen eroista eri valtioissa, mutta konsepti lakipalvelun tuotteistamiseen on yleismaailmallinen

    Retrieval, reuse, revision and retention in case-based reasoning

    Get PDF
    El original está disponible en www.journals.cambridge.orgCase-based reasoning (CBR) is an approach to problem solving that emphasizes the role of prior experience during future problem solving (i.e., new problems are solved by reusing and if necessary adapting the solutions to similar problems that were solved in the past). It has enjoyed considerable success in a wide variety of problem solving tasks and domains. Following a brief overview of the traditional problem-solving cycle in CBR, we examine the cognitive science foundations of CBR and its relationship to analogical reasoning. We then review a representative selection of CBR research in the past few decades on aspects of retrieval, reuse, revision, and retention.Peer reviewe

    Applying CBR to manage argumentation in MAS

    Full text link
    [EN] The application of argumentation theories and techniques in multi-agent systems has become a prolific area of research. Argumentation allows agents to harmonise two types of disagreement situations: internal, when the acquisition of new information (e.g., about the environment or about other agents) produces incoherences in the agents' mental state; and external, when agents that have different positions about a topic engage in a discussion. The focus of this paper is on the latter type of disagreement situations. In those settings, agents must be able to generate, select and send arguments to other agents that will evaluate them in their turn. An efficient way for agents to manage these argumentation abilities is by using case-based reasoning, which has been successfully applied to argumentation from its earliest beginnings. This reasoning methodology also allows agents to learn from their experiences and therefore, to improve their argumentation skills. This paper analyses the advantages of applying case-based reasoning to manage arguments in multi-agent systems dialogues, identifies open issues and proposes new ideas to tackle them.This work was partially supported by CONSOLIDERINGENIO 2010 under grant CSD2007-00022 and by the Spanish government and FEDER funds under CICYT TIN2005-03395 and TIN2006-14630-C0301 projects.Heras Barberá, SM.; Julian Inglada, VJ.; Botti Navarro, VJ. (2010). Applying CBR to manage argumentation in MAS. International Journal of Reasoning-based Intelligent Systems. 2(2):110-117. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJRIS.2010.034906S1101172

    CBR and MBR techniques: review for an application in the emergencies domain

    Get PDF
    The purpose of this document is to provide an in-depth analysis of current reasoning engine practice and the integration strategies of Case Based Reasoning and Model Based Reasoning that will be used in the design and development of the RIMSAT system. RIMSAT (Remote Intelligent Management Support and Training) is a European Commission funded project designed to: a.. Provide an innovative, 'intelligent', knowledge based solution aimed at improving the quality of critical decisions b.. Enhance the competencies and responsiveness of individuals and organisations involved in highly complex, safety critical incidents - irrespective of their location. In other words, RIMSAT aims to design and implement a decision support system that using Case Base Reasoning as well as Model Base Reasoning technology is applied in the management of emergency situations. This document is part of a deliverable for RIMSAT project, and although it has been done in close contact with the requirements of the project, it provides an overview wide enough for providing a state of the art in integration strategies between CBR and MBR technologies.Postprint (published version

    Case-Based strategies for argumentation dialogues in agent societies

    Full text link
    [EN] In multi-agent systems, agents perform complex tasks that require different levels of intelligence and give rise to interactions among them. From these interactions, conflicts of opinion can arise, especially when these systems become open, with heterogeneous agents dynamically entering or leaving the system. Therefore, agents willing to participate in this type of system will be required to include extra capabilities to explicitly represent and generate agreements on top of the simpler ability to interact. Furthermore, agents in multiagent systems can form societies, which impose social dependencies on them. These dependencies have a decisive influence in the way agents interact and reach agreements. Argumentation provides a natural means of dealing with conflicts of interest and opinion. Agents can reach agreements by engaging in argumentation dialogues with their opponents in a discussion. In addition, agents can take advantage of previous argumentation experiences to follow dialogue strategies and persuade other agents to accept their opinions. Our insight is that case-based reasoning can be very useful to manage argumentation in open multi-agent systems and devise dialogue strategies based on previous argumentation experiences. To demonstrate the foundations of this suggestion, this paper presents the work that we have done to develop case-based dialogue strategies in agent societies. Thus, we propose a case-based argumentation framework for agent societies and define heuristic dialogue strategies based on it. The framework has been implemented and evaluated in a real customer support application.This work is supported by the Spanish Government Grants [CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, and TIN2012-36586-C03-01] and by the GVA project [PROMETEO 2008/051].Heras Barberá, SM.; Jordan Prunera, JM.; Botti, V.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2013). Case-Based strategies for argumentation dialogues in agent societies. Information Sciences. 223:1-30. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2012.10.007S13022

    Intellectual property rights, private investment in research, and productivity growth in Indian agriculture: A review of evidence and options

    Get PDF
    With the growth of private investment in developing-country agriculture, new advances in the biological sciences, and rapid integration of developing countries into the global trading system, intellectual property rights (IPRs) have become an important concern for policymakers, corporate decisionmakers, and many other players in the agricultural sector. But there are still unanswered questions about whether emerging and evolving IPR regimes in developing countries will contribute to increasing agricultural productivity and improving food security. This paper attempts to answer some of these questions by tracing the effects of IPRs on private investment in crop genetic improvement and, in turn, on agricultural productivity. The paper focuses specifically on the case of India, the regional leader in implementing IPRs in agriculture. Findings indicate that maize and pearl millet yields grew significantly during the last two decades due to the combination of (1) public policies that encouraged private investment in India's seed industry during the 1980s, (2) public investment in hybrid breeding programs that generated new materials offering substantial yield gains, and (3) biological IPRs conferred by hybridization that conveniently married the private sector's need for appropriability with the nation's need for productivity growth. Although past lessons are not an indication of future success, this convergence of policy solutions and technology opportunities can be replicated for other crops that are vital to India's food security.Agricultural productivity, agricultural research and development, food security, Intellectual property rights,
    • …
    corecore