Wyner, Bench-Capon, et al.: A Model-Based Critique Tool for Policy Deliberation

Dr. Adam Wyner, Professor Dr. Trevor Bench-Capon, and colleagues, all of the University of Liverpool Department of Computer Science, will present a paper entitled A Model-Based Critique Tool for Policy Deliberation, at JURIX 2012: International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, being held 17-19 December 2012 at the Leibniz Center for Law, University of Amsterdam.

Here is the abstract:

Domain models have proven useful as the basis for the construction and evaluation of arguments to support deliberation about policy proposals. Using a model provides the means to systematically examine and understand the fine-grained objections that individuals might have about the policy. While in previous approaches, a justification for a policy proposal is presented for critique by the user, here, we reuse the domain model to invert the roles of the citizen and the government: a policy proposal is elicited from the citizen, and a software agent automatically and systematically critiques it relative to the model and the government’s point of view. Such an approach engages citizens in a critical dialogue about the policy actions, which may lead to a better understanding of the implications of their proposals and that of the government. A web-based tool that interactively leads users through the critique is presented.

This paper was produced as part of Project IMPACT.

HT Dr. Adam Wyner.

Bench-Capon et al.: A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of ICAIL

Professor Dr. Trevor Bench-Capon the University of Liverpool Department of Computer Science, and colleagues, have published A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law, forthcoming in Artificial Intelligence and Law.

Here is the abstract:

We provide a retrospective of 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law, which was first held in 1987. Fifty papers have been selected from the thirteen conferences and each of them is described in a short subsection individually written by one of the 24 authors. These subsections attempt to place the paper discussed in the context of the development of AI and Law, while often offering some personal reactions and reflections. As a whole, the subsections build into a history of the last quarter century of the field, and provide some insights into where it has come from, where it is now, and where it might go.

Three of Adam Wyner‘s contributions to this issue are linked from the post: Wyner on Logic Programming, Case Law Knowledge Bases, and Legal Case-Based Reasoning and Information Retrieval.

Wyner, Atkinson & Bench-Capon: Model Based Critique of Policy Proposals

Dr. Adam Wyner, Dr. Katie Atkinson, and Professor Dr. Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, all of the University of Liverpool Department of Computer Science, will present a paper entitled Model Based Critique of Policy Proposals, at ePart 2012: The Fourth international conference on eParticipation, on 5 September 2012, in Kristiansand, Norway.

Here is the abstract:

Citizens may engage with policy issues both to critique official justifications, and to make their own proposals and receive reasons why they are not favoured. Either direction of use can be supported by argumentation schemes based on formal models, which can be used to verify and generate arguments, assimilate objections etc. Previously we have explored the citizen critiquing a justification using an argumentation scheme based on Alternating Action-based Transition Systems. We now present a system which uses the same model to critique proposals from citizens. A prototype has been implemented in Prolog and we illustrate the ideas with code fragments and a running example.

The example discussed in the paper deals with legal compliance.

Horty and Bench-Capon on A Factor-based Definition of Precedential Constraint

Professor Dr. John F. Horty of the University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies, and Professor Dr. Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon of the University of Liverpool Department of Computer Science, have published A factor-based definition of precedential constraint, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20, 181-214.

Here is the abstract:

This paper describes one way in which a precise reason model of precedent could be developed, based on the general idea that courts are constrained to reach a decision that is consistent with the assessment of the balance of reasons made in relevant earlier decisions. The account provided here has the additional advantage of showing how this reason model can be reconciled with the traditional idea that precedential constraint involves rules, as long as these rules are taken to be defeasible. The account presented is firmly based on a body of work that has emerged in AI and Law. This work is discussed, and there is a particular discussion of approaches based on theory construction, and how that work relates to the model described in this paper.

Wyner on Workshop on FP7 eGovernance and Policy Modelling Projects

Dr. Adam Wyner of the University of Leeds Centre for Digital Citizenship has posted Note on Workshop on FP7 eGovernance and Policy Modelling Projects, on his blog, Language Logic Law Software.

The EU-funded Project IMPACT : Integrated Method for Policy Making Using Argument Modelling and Computer Assisted Text Analysis, was featured at the Workshop. Click here for more information about Project IMPACT.

Here is introductory information about the post:

On January 27th, 2012, I attended a workshop in Sheffield, United Kingdom on current FP7 eGovernance and Policy Modelling projects. This was an opportunity to hear from and meet participants in other projects, largely based in the United Kingdom. The information (somewhat augmented) about the workshop is below. My colleagues in the IMPACT Project, Professor Ann Macintosh and Neil Benn, presented our side of the story.

Aims

• To close the gap between the availability of cutting edge R & D in eGovernance and Policy Modelling and its take-up in local and central government. It will bring the new governance projects and those about to exploit their results into a collaborative environment.
• To link the projects currently creating the best practice of the future with initiatives seeking to share current best practice, thus assisting with “exploitation” of the new initiatives.
• To briefly assess how these initiatives may be of global benefit by examining how China may be encouraged to take a short cut to sustainable development and looking at joint approaches to China.

For more information, please see the complete post.

Bench-Capon on Representing Popov v Hayashi with Dimensions and Factors

Professor Dr. Trevor Bench-Capon of the University of Liverpool Department of Computer Science has published Representing Popov v Hayashi with Dimensions and Factors, forthcoming in Artificial Intelligence and Law. Here is the abstract:

Modelling reasoning with legal cases has been a central concern of AI and Law since the 1980s. The approach which represents cases as factors and dimensions has been a central part of that work. In this paper I consider how several varieties of the approach can be applied to the interesting case of Popov v Hayashi. After briefly reviewing some of the key landmarks of the approach, the case is represented in terms of factors and dimensions, and further explored using theory construction and argumentation schemes approaches.

Call for Proposals: Artificial Intelligence and Law Journal, Special 25th Anniversary Issue

A call for proposals — with submission deadline of 17 February 2012 — has been issued for a special 25th anniversary issue of the journal Artificial Intelligence and Law.

Here is an excerpt from the instructions:

Our idea is that a large number of contributors should each write a short piece about some particular paper that appeared in ICAIL [the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law]. The paper should be one that has contributed to the contributor’s understanding of some aspect of AI and Law, and which still has some message for today.

Contributions should be at most two pages and should cover:

• The research context of the paper: the state of the art at the time;
• The contribution of the paper (e.g. the technique, method, or question it introduced; its main theoretical or empirical results; or other contribution);
• How this contribution influenced the author personally;
• How this contribution has been developed in AI and Law;
• Why the paper is important today (e.g. lines of research that remain open, or questions that need no longer be asked).

Proposals should include a list of “three papers that you would be interested in writing about.”

The call includes a list of the most frequently cited papers from the conference. “(A complete table of contents for all ICAILs is at http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/icail/index.html.)”

For more information, please see the call.

HT Anne Gardner.

Bench-Capon & Prakken on Using Argument Schemes for Hypothetical Reasoning in Law

Professor Dr. Trevor Bench-Capon of the University of Liverpool Department of Computer Science, and Professor Dr. Henry Prakken of the University of Groningen Faculty of Law have published Using Argument Schemes for Hypothetical Reasoning in Law, forthcoming in Artificial Intelligence and Law. Here is the abstract:

This paper studies the use of hypothetical and value-based reasoning in US Supreme-Court cases concerning the United States Fourth Amendment. Drawing upon formal AI & Law models of legal argument a semi-formal reconstruction is given of parts of the Carney case, which has been studied previously in AI & law research on case-based reasoning. As part of the reconstruction, a semi-formal proposal is made for extending the formal AI & Law models with forms of metalevel reasoning in several argument schemes. The result is compared with Rissland’s (1989) analysis in terms of dimensions and Ashley’s (2008) analysis in terms of his process model of legal argument with hypotheticals.