Ronkainen: Intelligent Trademark Analysis: Large-Scale Evaluation of Real-World Legal AI

Anna Ronkainen, LL.M., of Onomatics, Inc., has posted Intelligent Trademark Analysis: Experiments in Large-Scale Evaluation of Real-World Legal AI, a paper she presented this week at ICAIL 2013: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law.

Here is the abstract:

The intelligent trademark analysis system developed by Onomatics is a trademark information system based on an AI model of trademark similarity (likelihood of confusion). The basic technology can be used as a general trademark search engine as well as for more specific purposes ranging from trademark candidate ranking (TrademarkNow NameRank) to comprehensive risk analysis (TrademarkNow NameCheck) and IPR enforcement. This paper presents a brief overview of the system and the concrete applications available as of April 2013. The system has been evaluated on a large number of actual trademark opposition cases, over 30 000 from the USPTO TTAB and over 20 000 from the OHIM Opposition Division, currently with a precision of 79.9% and a recall of 94.9%.

HT @ronkaine

Legal Informatics and Legal Communication Papers @ LSA 2013

Here is a selected list of papers on legal informatics or legal communication presented at LSA 2013: Law and Society Association Annual Meeting, held 31 May-2 June 2013, in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. (Click here for the conference program.) (Click here for abstracts of the papers on deliberation.) (If you know of other legal informatics or legal communication papers presented at the conference but not listed here, please feel free to mention them in the comments):

• Janet Ainsworth (Seattle University): Contestation over Knowledge in Courtroom Discourse: The Expert Witness on the Stand
• Stephanie L. Albertson (Indiana University Southeast): The Influence of Jurors’ Race on Perceptions of Complex Scientific Evidence
• Benoit Aubert, Gilbert Babin, and Hamza Aqallal (HEC Montreal): Providing an Architecture Framework for Cyberjustice
• Susan A. Bandes (DePaul University): Victim Impact Evidence and Gruesome Photos: Reconsidering the Probative, the Prejudicial, and the Emotional
• Vanessa Beaton (University of Ottawa): A Missing Link in the Literature: Towards an Interdisciplinary Analysis of Justice Sector Technology
• Rubens Becak, and Joao Victor R Longhi (University of Sao Paulo): The Collaborative Legislative Procedure: Participativity Through the Internet during the Draft Bill Number 2.126/2011, Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet
• Alyse Bertenthal (University of California – Irvine): Law in Translation: The Construction of Legal Narratives
• Josh Blackman (South Texas College of Law, Houston): Robot, Esq.
• Jenny Temechko Braun (University of Virginia): Writing the Terms of Indian Country: Sherrill v. Oneida and Colonial Copyright Narratives
• Clara de Brauw (Athena Insitute, VU University): How Have Recent Changes in Dutch Public Law Affected Opposition Movements Against Policy Decisions? The Case of Public Participation in Land-Use Decision-Making
• Jacquelyn Burkell (University of Western Ontario) and Jane Bailey (University of Ottawa): Implementing Courtroom Technology: The Canadian Perspective
• Ellen S. Cohn, Rick J. Trinkner, and Lindsey Marie Cole (University of New Hampshire): Legitimacy and Normative Status as Mediators between Legal Reasoning and Adolescent Rule-Violating Behavior
• Lindsey Marie Cole and Ellen S. Cohn (University of New Hampshire): Jury Room Reasoning: The Use of Evidence, Counterfactual Thinking, and Emotion in Jury Deliberations
• Marie Comiskey (University of Michigan): A Transnational Approach to Juror Comprehension: Comparing Canadian and American Jury Instructions and Jury Aids
• Robin Conley (Marshall University): Agents of the State: Jurors’ Negotiations of Accountability in Death Penalty Decisions
• Richard Cornes (School of Law, Essex University): Darkness upon the Face of the Earth: The Communications Challenge Facing the United Kingdom’s New Supreme Court
• Yasmin Dawood (University of Toronto): Democracy, Deliberation, and Participation
• Anya Degenshein (Northwestern University): Shared Meaning, Shrouded Legitimacy, and Ruptured Alliances: The Creation of Prosecutorial Power in the Legislative Arena
• Clarissa Diniz Guedes (Law School Federal University of Juiz de Fora): Brazilian Civil Procedure in the Age of Visual Media: A Case-Law Review on Video Evidence
• Gregory Dolin (University of Baltimore): Speaking of Science: Introducing Notice-and-Comment into the Legislative Process
• Laurence Dumoulin (CNRS – ISP): What is “Justice at a Distance”? Spaces, Symbols and Routines in Remote Court Hearing
• Dana D. Dyson, and Kathryn Schellenberg, University of Michigan-Flint: Access to Justice: The Readability of Legal Aid Internet Services
• Neal Feigenson (Quinnipiac University): Opinions Gone Wild: Multimedia Links in Judicial Opinions
• Roberto Freitas Filho (Centro de Ensino Unificado de Brasilia), and Luciana Barbosa Musse (Centro Universitario de Brasilia – UniCEUB): Methodology of Analysis of Decision – MAD
• Masahiro Fujita (Kansai University), and Syugo Hotta (Meiji University): Trust in Legal System in Japan: An Internet Survey
• Nancy Gertner (Harvard law School): The Jury and Social Networking
• Julie Globokar (Kent State University): Narratives and Counter-Narratives Surrounding the Passage of the Federal Probation Act of 1925
• Catherine M. Grosso (Michigan State University): Information Seeking in Voir Dire: Could Modifying Juror Questioning Reduce Jury Selection Racial Disparities
• Branislav Hazucha, Hsiao-Chien Liu, and Toshihide Watabe (Hokkaido University): Copyright, Protection Measures and Their Acceptance by Consumers in Japan
• Syugo Hotta (Meiji University): A Neuroscientific Analysis of Language Used in Japanese Mixed-Jury Trials: Preliminary Study
• Kathleen E. Hull and Penny Edgell (University of Minnesota): Cultural Schemas of Law in Talk about Social Controversies
• Scott Ingram (High Point University), and Jennifer Banks (UTS: Insearch): The Power of the Common Law: Judicial Language in Australia, the UK and the US
• Rafael M. Iorio Filho (Universidade Estcio de S), Fernanda Duarte (Universidade Federal Fluminense): Constitutional Law and Discourse: Representations of Brazilian Legal Culture
• Ross Kleinstuber (University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown), Heather V Zaykowski (University of Massachusetts Boston), and Caitlin McDonough (Umass Boston): Judicial Narratives of Ideal and Deviant Victims in Judges’ Capital Sentencing Decisions
• Janny Leung (University of Hong Kong): Justice According to the Powerless: The Case of Unrepresented Litigation in Hong Kong
• Karen Levy (Princeton University): The Automation of Compliance: Techno-Legal Regulation in the U.S. Trucking Industry
• Wenjie Liao (University of Minnesota): Why Chinese People Obey the Law: A Survey of Legal Compliance
• Mona Lynch (University of California, Irvine): Empathy, Anger and Death: Racialized Emotional Expressions in Mock Capital Jury Deliberations
• Giampiero Lupo (Research Institute on Judicial Systems (IRSIG-CNR) – National Research Council of Italy): Explaining Successes and Failures of E-Justice Services in Europe: The Cases of Money Claim on-Line, Trial Online, e-Barreaux and e-Codex
• David Marrani (University of Essex): Cameras in Courts: Between Voyeurism and Transparency
• Shelby A. McKinzey and Sara Steen (University of Colorado, Boulder): Understanding the Meaning of Evidence in the Use of “Evidence-Based Practices”: Drug Policy Reform in Colorado
• Jesse Merriam (Johns Hopkins University): The Rule of Law as a Language Game: A Wittgensteinian Look at Stare Decisis and Legal Consistency
• Susan Moffitt (Brown University): Making Policy Public: Developing Bureaucratic Administration through Advisory Committee Public Deliberation
• Mami Hiraike Okawara (Takasaki City University of Economics), and Kazuhiko Higuchi (Cosmos Law Firm): A Discourse Analysis of Sakurai’s Confession Statement of the Fukawa Case
• Gregory S. Parks (Wake Forest University): Predicting Racial Bias in Tort Jury Decision Making
• Liana Jean Pennington (Northeastern University): Legal Mobilization, Voice, and the Invocation of Justice Frames within the Juvenile Delinquency Court Process
• Usha Rao (Independent Scholar): Speaking from Somewhere: Locating the Judicial Voice in the Judgment
• Alexander E Reger (University of Connecticut): Discourse and the Law: The Case of Gerald Ford and the Vietnam Amnesty Debates
• Vicente Riccio (Law School Federal University of Juiz de Fora): Brazilian Criminal Procedure in the Age of Visual Media: A Case-Law Review on Video Evidence
• Tanina Rostain (Georgetown Law Center): What are Lawyers Good for?
• Jessica M. Salerno (Arizona State University): How Race, Gender, and Emotion Expression Affect Holdout Jurors’ Influence during Jury Deliberation
• Damien Scalia (University of Geneva): International Criminal Justice: Perception of Legitimacy by the Accused
• Samuel R. Sommers (Tufts University): On Juries, Deliberations, and Racial Diversity
• Simon Stern (University of Toronto): Fictional Origins of the Reasonable Person
• Lupita Svensson (Ersta Skndal University): Welfare and Law Interacting: Utilising a Socio-Legal Text Analysis Model
• Stella Szantova Giordano (Quinnipiac University School of Law): We Have to Get By: Court Interpreting and Its Impact on Access to Justice for Non-Native English Speakers
• Justine Tinkler (University of Georgia) and Sarah Becker (Louisiana State University): “It is Just a Part of Going to Bars”: College Students’ Attitudes about the Legal Regulation of Unwanted Sexual Contact in Public Drinking Settings
• Tom Tyler (Yale University): Values and Law-Related Behavior
• Margaret van Naerssen (Immaculata University): Convincing Judges of Validity Socio-Cultural Issues in Linguistic Analyses
• Elizabeth S. Vartkessian, and Christopher E. Kelly (University at Albany): Capital Improvements? Juror Decision-Making in Texas Death Penalty Trials before and after Penry v. Lynaugh
• Neil Vidmar (Duke University): The Growing Use of Biological Predisposition Evidence and Its Implications for the Jury System
• Richard Weisman (York University): Being and Doing: An Approach to the Social and Legal Regulation of Remorse
• John Zeleznikow (Victoria University), and Pompeu Casanovas (Autonomous University of Barcelona): Online Dispute Resolution and Models of Relational Law and Justice

For abstracts of papers, please search the conference program. For full text of papers, please contact the authors.

Legal informatics papers @ CeDEM 2013

At least two papers on legal informatics were presented this week at CeDEM 2013: International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, held 21-25 May 2013, Danube University Krems, Austria:

Kheira Belkacem and Vasilis Koulolias: Botswana Speaks Parliamentary Initiative: A sociopolitical approach to eDemocracy initiatives in developing countries

Aspasia Papaloi and Dimitris G. Gouscos: Parliamentary Information Visualization: Paving the way towards legislative transparency and empowered citizens. Abstract:

Governments may be becoming more extroverted by interacting with citizens, yet citizens remain frustrated as many do not know about legislative procedures. Aspasia Papaloi suggets the use of visualisation to help citizens access information, gain the necessary skills, commmunicate and collaborate. Visualisation is about information quality and clarity, and must follow accessibility (equal access, right to information) and usability standards (quality, efficiency, effectiveness).
Parliamentary information viusalisation (PIV) focuses on openness, transparency, and empowerment. Aspasia Papaloi wonders whether opening parliamentray data will be able to achieve legislative transparency? Any answer though requires the consideration of factors such as the involvement of stakeholders, the feasability and an evaluation of the scope and success of such an aim. It also requires the consideration of user needs and how they visualise information.

For abstracts and full text of papers, please contact the authors.

Click here for the BotswanaSpeaks Website.

The Twitter hashtag for the conference was #cedem13

Click here for the complete conference program.

If you know of other legal informatics papers or posters presented at the conference, please feel free to mention them in the comments.

HT @FrieseWoudloper and Digital Society Lab

Abstracts: Bayesian Analysis in Law: Papers presented at Conference: The Many Faces of Contemporary Philosophy and Theory of Law

Abstracts have been posted of papers presented at the Conference: The Many Faces of Contemporary Philosophy and Theory of Law, held 23-24 March 2013, at Jagellonian University, Cracow, Poland. The conference included a special working group on Bayesian analysis in law, abstracts of papers of which begin on page 6 of the abstracts volume and are excerpted below:

Dr Jeroen Keppens: Bayesian Perspectives on the Value of Evidence. Abstract:

Given the interdisciplinary audience, I would like to introduce the Bayesian approach to evidential reasoning in Law. Then I plan to move on the Bayesian modeling techniques and the various concerns and difficulties that arise from it.

Paweł Banaś and Krzysztof Kasparek: Some remarks about controversies concerning applying Bayes theorem to criminal policy-making. Abstract:

The following paper aims at summarizing a discussion concerning the exploitation of Baysesian analysis within criminal policy-making, namely problems with the so called postprison civil commitment of sex offenders as sexually violent predators (SVPs) employed currently in some of the US states. During this process it is determined whether a former convict will be “classified” as SVP. Typically, actuarial instruments are used in order to help decide on this issue. Recently, Richard Wollert has pointed out that exploitation of Bayesian theorem may prove useful in this type of cases when addressing at least some of the questions that may arise. However, his ideas were met with much criticism within risk-assessment community. In this paper we want to present main arguments of both sides of the debate and point to some of the possible problems with Bayesian analysis as used in forensic psychology.

Piotr Bystranowski: Czy da się nauczyć prawników statystyki? Sieci bayesowskie a unikanie błędów probabilistycznych w rozumowaniach prawniczych. Abstract:

Od lat siedemdziesiątych i czasów przełomowych eksperymentów Kahnemana i Tversky’ego powszechnym stało się przekonanie, iż ludzkie osądy w warunkach niepewności często dają rezultaty systematycznie i rażąco niezgodne z regułami matematycznego rachunku prawdopodobieństwa, w tym zwłaszcza z tzw. wzorem Bayesa. Od błędów tego rodzaju nie jest wolna sala sądowa. Przeciwnie – wyniki szeregu procesów karnych pokazują, że wymiar sprawiedliwości jest podatny na wiele błędów w rozumowaniach probabilistycznych (z tzw. złudzeniem prokuratora na czele). Ich skutkiem bywa, na przykład, przypisanie zbyt dużej pewności materiałowi dowodowemu, który z formalnego punktu widzenia zdaje się być dalece nierozstrzygający. Pociąga to za sobą pytanie, w jaki sposób rozwiązać ową ewidentną niezgodność mię-dzy intuicyjnymi rozumowaniami w warunkach niepewności a formalnymi metodami probabilistycznymi. [...] Tych mankamentów zdaje się unikać proponowana przez Normana Fentona i Martina Neila wizualizacja przy pomocy sieci bayesowskich. W ten sposób można modelować nawet najbardziej skomplikowany materiał dowodowy w sposób przejrzysty dla laika. Rola stron procesu ograniczałaby się tu do sprecyzowania prawdopodobieństw a priori i zależności między poszczególnymi zmiennymi, zaś zadanie skonstruowania architektury sieci pozostawiano by ekspertom. O prawomocności obliczeń dokonywanych „pod spodem” można by przekonać strony na prostych przykładach, z wykorzystaniem np. drzewek zdarzeniowych. Zatem zastosowanie sieci bayesowskich w procesie miałoby być, zdaniem Fentona i Neila, najprostszym sposobem uniknięcia błędów probabilistycznych bez konieczności podejmowania beznadziejnego zadania, jakim jest nauczenie prawników statystyki.

Bartosz Janik: Some remarks concerning Bayesian rationality in Law. Abstract:

This paper aims at providing some remarks concerning Bayesian decision theory (BDT) and rationality in the legal perspective. As a first point I would like to provide a philosophical account of rationality and I will try to, while focusing on most appropriate meaning of it, to judge it from a legal point of view. It will be clear that the general notion of legal rationality is very complicated and we must set some particular goals to achieve a more global perspective. In my paper, I will focus on legal reasoning and will try to adopt Rescher’s distinction of cognitive/practical/evaluative rationality for the purpose of this analysis. The main point of this part will be the evaluation, to what extent risk aversion is connected with rationality. The thesis will be formulated in the following manner: the mechanisms of risk avoidance could serve as local rationality–triggers (as to oppose skepticism in Rescher’s terminology and deal with imperfection of our cognitive resources). The second point will be the attempt to show the connection between Bayesian decision theory (which focuses on error minimizing and thus, risk avoidance) and rationality. I will introduce basic formalism of BDT and show how, on that basis, we could formulate the local rationality for legal decision making. Again, the central notion will be the risk and I will present formal mechanism of risk avoidance in BDT. The notion of rationality, as a risk optimizer, will be proposed for this local environment. The last point of the analysis will be the answer to the question to what extent we are free from legal–theoretic assumptions in formulations of rationality. It turns out that the choice of an underlying theory of law will always determine our global notion of rationality but in the local perspective we could formulate general tools and concepts.

Izabela Skoczeń: Why should a lawyer calculate the probability of implicature formation? Abstract:

This paper aims at providing examples of possible applications of methods for calculating the probability of implicature formation (with the use of the bayesian method) in legal situations. The basis for the present considerations will be the notion of scalar implicatures, based on the gricean approach to Pragmatics. Scalars are based on conventional meanings attributed to words with the use of lexical scales (Horn). Placing a word in a definite position in a scale enables the speakers to attribute it a definite meaning, that does not have to be consistent with the lexical meaning that would be understood with the use of classical logic. [...] As experiments have proven, in contexts with data deficit the probability of definite implicature formation is rather not intuitive. A quite striking example is the following situation: if while describing three objects, the speakers has information concerning the features of only two of them, the hearer seems more prone to infer, that the third item disposes of the same feature while hearing an utterance with the numeral “two”, rather than “some”. This surprising result seems most vital for lawyers, as it conveys a hidden pattern of linguistic manipulation. The conventional implicature that should be cancelled due to pragmatic reasons is so strong, that it still influences the meaning. Imagine, that we have three suspects A,B,C and we know that A and B were at the crime scene that day. We don’t know, whether C was at the crime scene. If the probability of omitting scalar implicature cancellation is higher when using expressions like some, rather than numerals, C’s defendant should rather say “Some of the suspects were at the crime scene.” rather than “Two were at the crime scene.”. The later formulation, according to Goodman and Stuhlm¨uller calculations, would boost the probability of the court inferring the implicature that C was also at the crime scene that day. This observation opens an entire new range of possibilities of manipulating implicature formation in contexts, where the hearer is aware of the speaker’s data being insufficient. It is often the in judicial environments, when the provided evidence is too scarce.

For full text of the papers, please contact the authors.

HT Bartosz Janik

CODR 2013: Conference on Online Dispute Resolution: Tweets and Resources

This post links to resources related to CODR 2013: Conference on Online Dispute Resolution, held 19 April 2013 at Stanford Law School.

Click here for Twitter tweets from the conference, archived in .csv format.

The Twitter hashtag for the conference was #CODR2013

Some papers from the conference are available at http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/codr2013/papers/

Here is the conference agenda (from here):

Panel 1: The Impact of ODR on the Practice of Law

Ron Dolin, Lecturer in Law, Stanford Law School: “Impact of ODR on Small Claims”

Richard S. Granat, Director, Center for Law Practice Technology and CEO/Founder, LawMediaLabs, Inc.: “Software-Assisted Online Divorce Mediation”

Ayelet Sela, JSD Candidate, Stanford Law School: “ODR System Design: Lessons from Research and Practice”

Panel 2: The Technology of ODR

James Ring, CEO, Fair Outcomes, Inc.: “Using Online Commitment Mechanisms to Manage and Resolve Legal Claims“

Loic Coutelier, Director of Arbitration and Product Manager, Modria.com: “Three Practical Applications of ODR Innovations”

Jin Ho Verdonschot, Justice Sector Advisor, The Netherlands: “The Future of Courts: A New Procedure for Neighbor Disputes in the Netherlands”

Moderator: Roland Vogl, Lecturer in Law and Executive Director, Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology

Panel 3: ODR in the International Arena

Colin Rule, CEO, Modria.com: “Online Dispute Resolution and Internet Justice“

Vikki M. Rogers, Director, Institute of International Commercial Law, Pace Law School: “Managing Disputes in the Online Global Marketplace: Reviewing the Progress of UNCITRAL’s Working Group III on ODR“

Amy J. Schmitz, Professor of Law, University of Colorado School of Law: “ODR to Address American Exceptionalism in Arbitration“

Moderator: Janet Martinez, Senior Lecturer in Law and Director, Gould Negotiation & Mediation Program, Stanford Law School

For videos of this conference, please see the comments to this post.

Legal Informatics Papers @ BILETA 2013

Several legal informatics papers are being presented at BILETA 2013: The 28th Annual Conference of the British and Irish Legal Educational Technology Association, being held 10-12 April 2013 in Liverpool, England, UK.

Click here for the conference program and abstracts.

The Twitter hashtag for the conference is #bileta13

Click here for archived Twitter tweets from the conference.

Here are the authors and titles of the legal informatics papers I was able to identify (click here for abstracts of these papers and other papers from the conference):

• A. Leveringhaus and T. de Greef: Autonomous Robotic Weapons Systems: Protecting legal and moral responsibility via sound design
• J. Lombard & L. O’Brien: The use of a legal ontology to support governance, risk and compliance in the financial services industry
• P. Cortés: Recommendations for the Design of the European Online Dispute Resolution Platform
• A. Alajaji: Electronic contracting: The EU and Saudi Arabia’s approaches
• K. Rogers: Consent in the online environment – principles before form?
• S. Woodhouse, M. Waite, J. Marshall: The development of pro-bono clinical legal assessment in response to intersecting agendas: legal aid, professionalisation, and evolving legal advice paradigms
• A. Muntjewerff: Learning and Instruction in the Digital Age
• F. Grealy, J. Bainbridge, P. Maharg, R. Mitchell, J. Mills, F. Grealy, R. O’Boyle & K. Counsell: iLEGALL (iPads and Legal Learning): mobile legal learning
• S. Dempsey & R. O’Shea: Promoting Legal Fairness Through Data Analysis
• C. Easton: MOOCs: Too Connected for Effective Interaction?
• J. Marshall: Revisiting podcasting in the age of MOOCS – understanding student engagement with self-running learning resources in different educational contexts

Shay et al.: Do Robots Dream of Electric Laws? An Experiment in Law as Algorithm

Professor Dr. Lisa Shay of the West Point Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and colleagues, presented a paper entitled Do Robots Dream of Electric Laws? An Experiment in Law as Algorithm, at We Robot 2013 Conference, held 8-9 April 2013 at Stanford Law School.

Here is the abstract:

Due to recent advances in computerized analysis and robotics, automated law enforcement has become technically feasible. Unfortunately, laws were not created with automated enforcement in mind, and even seemingly simple laws have subtle features that require programmers to make assumptions about how to encode them. We demonstrate this ambiguity with an experiment where a group of 52 programmers was assigned the task of automating the enforcement of traffic speed limits. A late model vehicle was equipped with a sensor that collected actual vehicle speed over an hour long commute. The programmers (without collaboration) each wrote a program that computed the number of speed limit violations and issued mock traffic tickets. Despite quantitative data for both vehicle speed and the speed limit, the number of tickets issued varied from none to one per sensor sample above the speed limit. Our results from the experiment highlight the significant deviation in number and type of citations issued during the course of the commute, based on legal interpretations and assumptions made by programmers untrained in the law. These deviations were mitigated, but not eliminated, in one sub-group that was provided with a legally reviewed software design specification, providing insight into ways to automate the law in the future. Automation of legal reasoning is likely to be the most effective in contexts where legal conclusions are predictable because there is little room for choice in a given model; that is, they are determinable. Yet this experiment demonstrates that even relatively narrow and straightforward “rules” can be problematically indeterminate in practice.

HT @lawyertechrvw

Accepted papers: ICAIL 2013

The list of accepted papers, research abstracts, and demos has been posted for ICAIL 2013: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, to be held 10-14 June 2013 in Rome.

Here is the list:

Papers

• Trevor Bench-Capon, Henry Prakken, Zachary Wyner Ada , Katie Atkinson: Argument schemes for Reasoning with Legal Cases Using Values
• Guido Boella, Marijn Janssen, Joris Hulstijn, Llio Humphreys, Leendert van der Torre: Managing Legal Interpretation in Regulatory Compliance
• Isabella Distinto, Nicola Guarino, Claudio Masolo: A well-founded ontological framework for modeling personal income tax
• Davide Gianfelice, Leonardo Lesmo, Monica Palmirani, Daniele Perlo, Daniele P. Radicioni: Modificatory Provisions Detection: a Hybrid NLP Approach
• Laura Giordano, Alberto Martelli, Daniele Theseider Dupré: Temporal Deontic Action Logic for the Verification of Compliance to Norms in ASP
• Guido Governatori, Francesco Olivieri, Antonino Rotolo, Simone Scannapieco: Legal Contractions: A Logical Analysis
• Guido Governatori, Monica Palmirani, Tara Athan, Harold Boley, Adrian Paschke, Adam Wyner: LegalRuleML
• Matthias Grabmair, Kevin D. Ashley: Using Event Progression to Enhance Purposive Argumentation in the Value Judgment Formalism
• Marc Lauritsen: On Balance
• Antonio Mastropaolo, Francesco Pallante, Daniele P. Radicioni: Legal Documents Categorization by Compression
• Antonino Rotolo, Serena Villata, Fabien Gandon: A Deontic Logic Semantics for Licenses Composition in the Web of Data
• Zaher Salah, Frans Coenen, Davide Grossi: Extracting Debate Graphs from Parliamentary Transcripts: A Study Directed at UK House of Commons Debates
• Mihai Surdeanu, Sara Jeruss: Identifying Patent Monetization Entities
• Tran Thi Oanh, Nguyen Le Minh,Akira Shimazu: Reference Resolution in Legal Texts
• Marc van Opijnen: A Model for Automated Rating of Case Law
• Charlotte S. Vlek, Henry Prakken, Silja Renooij, Bart Verheij: Modeling Crime Scenarios in a Bayesian Network
• Tomasz Zurek, Michał Araszkiewicz: Modeling teleological interpretation

Research Abstracts

• Michał Araszkiewicz, Agata Łopatkiewicz, Adam Zienkiewicz: Factor-Based Parent Plan Support System
• Kevin D. Ashley, Vern R. Walker: Automated Monitoring of Legal-Rule Compliance Using DeepQA NLP Tools: Screening Legal Documents for Argumentation Evidence
• Michal Chalamish, Moshe Hazoom, Uri J. Schild: Semi-Automatic Creation of Wigmore Diagrams
• Jack G. Conrad, John Zeleznikow: The Significance of Evaluation in AI and Law: A Case Study Re-examining ICAIL Proceedings
• Michael Curtotti, Eric McCreath, Srinivas Sridharan: Software Tools for the Visualization of Definition Networks in Legal Contracts
• Tingting Li, Tina Balke, Marina De Vos, Julian Padget, Ken Satoh: A Model-based Approach to the Automatic Revision of Secondary Legislation
• Doris Liebwald: Vagueness in Law. A Stimulus for ‘Artificial Intelligence & Law’
• Nada Mimouni, Meritxell Fernandez-Barrera, Adeline Nazarenko, Daniele Bourcier, Sylvie Salotti: A Relational Approach for Information Retrieval on XML Legal Sources
• Katsumi Nitta, Shumpei Kubosawa, Kei Nishina, Masaki Sugimoto, Shogo Okada: A Discussion Training Support System and Its Evaluation
• Gordon J. Pace, Fernando Schapachnik: Synthesising Implicit Contracts
• Anna Ronkainen: Intelligent Trademark Analysis: Experiments in Large-Scale Evaluation of Real-World Legal AI
• Antonino Rotolo, Regis Riveret, Didac Busquets, Giuseppe Contissa, Giovanni Sartor: Vicarious Reinforcement and Ex Ante Law Enforcement: A Study in Norm-Governed Learning Agents
• Ted Sichelman: The Mathematical Structure of Legal Rights
• Radboud Winkels, Jochem Douw, Sara Veldhoen: Experiments in Automated Support for Argument Reconstruction

Demo Abstracts

Guido Boella, Luigi Di Caro, Daniele Rispoli, Livio Robaldo: A System for Classifying Multi-label Text into EuroVoc

Thomas Gordon: Introducing the Carneades Web Application

Guido Governatori, Sidney Shek: Business Process Compliance Checker

Luc Ferrand, Isabelle Pesquié-Geday: Hammurabi, the legal expert assistant platform for the French Judge: How to deliver up to date knowledge of national and European laws and regulations in front of rapid expansion of legal information and decisions, with an automated software assistant

Jop Hofste, Hans Henseler, Maurice van Keulen: Computer assisted extraction, merging and correlation of identities

Adam Zachary Wyner, Maya Wardeh, Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon: Argumentation Based Tools for Policy-Making

In addition, registration for ICAIL 2013 is now open.

HT Anne Gardner and @francesconi_e

Ferrara and Gaglioti: Law as a System of Proportions and Symmetries

Professor Dr. Massimiliano Ferrara of Università Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria – Facoltà di Giurisprudenza, and Angelo, Roberto Gaglioti of MEDAlics, have published Law as a System of Proportions and Symmetries, in Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Mathematics and Computers in Business and Economics (MCBE ’12), World Scientific Engineering Academy and Society, 13th-15th June, 2012 Enescu Academy, Iasi, Romania (pp. 136-140).

Here is the abstract:

This paper aims at describing the mathematical proportions and symmetries characterizing the notion of legal Order. Starting from a Middle-Age definition of jus, we try to analyze the real and personal components of a legal proportion within any legal inter-individual relation. Then we deal with legal causality link in any legal rule, introducing a symmetric model of causation, instead of the more traditional interpretation of legal causation as consecutio temporum. Proportion and Symmetry make order inside a legal System.

Click here for other papers describing Professor Ferrara and colleagues’ Mathematical Model of Law.

Ferrara and Gaglioti: A Mathematical Model for the Quantitative Analysis of Law

Professor Dr. Massimiliano Ferrara of Università Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria – Facoltà di Giurisprudenza, and Angelo, Roberto Gaglioti of MEDAlics, have published A Mathematical Model for the Quantitative Analysis of Law. Putting Legal Values into Numbers, in Applied Mathematics in Electrical and Computer Engineering: Proceedings of the American Conference on Applied Mathematics (AMERICAN-MATH ’12′) (pp. 201-206) (Edited by Manoj K. Jha et al.) (WSEAS Press, 2012).

Here is the abstract:

This paper outlines the fundamentals of a mathematical model for the quantitative analysis of the legal phenomena. This model is not intended to be confined to a certain area of law, nor to a specific legal system, instead it is meant to provide with a framework of legal general theory, applicable to every legal situation. The model works conditionally upon the fact that any legally material event is described using a logical hypothetical tool (the Model Situation). This model associates any Situation with a certain axiological potential, what makes possible to determine even the discretionary amount of axiological potential, at disposal for the tactics of the legal operator. Legal conflicts among axiological potentials could be easily and objectively adjudicated.

Click here for other papers describing Professor Ferrara and colleagues’ Mathematical Model of Law.