Research in progress: report on the ICAIL 2017 doctoral consortium

This paper arose out of the 2017 international conference on AI and law doctoral consortium. There were five students who presented their Ph.D. work, and each of them has contributed a section to this paper. The paper offers a view of what topics are currently engaging students, and shows the diversity of their interests and influences

A framework for the extraction and modeling of fact-finding reasoning from legal decisions: lessons from the Vaccine/Injury Project Corpus

This article describes the Vaccine/Injury Project Corpus, a collection of legal decisions awarding or denying compensation for health injuries allegedly due to vaccinations, together with models of the logical structure of the reasoning of the factfinders in those cases. This unique corpus provides useful data for formal and informal logic theory, for natural-language research in linguistics, and for artificial intelligence research. More importantly, the article discusses lessons learned from developing protocols for manually extracting the logical structure and generating the logic models. It identifies sub-tasks in the extraction process, discusses challenges to automation, and provides insights into possible solutions for automation. In particular, the framework and strategies developed here, together with the corpus data, should allow top-down and contextual approaches to automation, which can supplement bottom-up linguistic approaches. Illustrations throughout the article use examples drawn from the Corpus

Case-based reasoning and law

293-29

Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game

. This paper analyses legal reasoning with precedents in the setting of a formally defined dialogue game. After giving a legal-theoretical account of judicial reasoning with precedents, a formal method is proposed for representing precedents and it is discussed how such representations can be used in a formally defined dialectical protocol for dispute. The basic ideas are to represent cases as argument structures (including pro and con arguments, and the arguments for adjudicating their conflicts) and to define certain case-based reasoning moves as strategies for introducing information into a dispute. In particular, analogizing and distinguishing are conceived as elementary theory construction moves, which produce new information on the basis of an existing stock of cases. The approach also offers the possibility of using portions of precedents and of expressing criteria for determining the outcome of precedent-based disputes. The analysis, which is partly based on argument-based sema..