Abstract
Studying examples of expert case-based adaptation could advance computational modeling but only if the examples can be succinctly represented and reliably interpreted. Supreme Court justices pose hypothetical cases, often adapting precedents, to evaluate if a proposed rule for deciding a problem needs to be adapted. This paper describes a diagrammatic representation of adaptive reasoning with hypothetical cases based on a process model. Since the diagrams are interpretations of argument texts, there is no one “correct” diagram, and reliability could be a challenge. An experiment assessed the reliability of expert grading of diagrams prepared by students reconstructing examples of hypothetical reasoning. Preliminary results indicate significant areas of agreement, including with respect to the ways tests are modified in response to hypotheticals, but slight agreement as to the role and import of hypotheticals. These results suggest that the diagrammatic representation will support studying and modeling the examples of case-based adaptation, but that the diagramming support needs to make certain features more explicit.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ashley, K.: Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)
Ashley, K.: What a Legal CBR Ontology Should Provide. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Int’l FLAIRS Conf. Case-Based Reasoning Track, Sanibel Island, FL (May 2009)
Ashley, K., Lynch, C., Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V.: A Process Model of Legal Argument with Hypotheticals. In: Legal Knowledge and Info. Sys., Proc. Jurix 2008, pp. 1–10 (2008)
Eisenberg, M.: The Nature of the Common Law. Harvard U. Press (1988)
Gewirtz, P.: The Jurisprudence of Hypotheticals. J. of Legal Education 32, 120–124 (1982)
Hayes-Roth, R.: Using proofs and refutations to learn from experience. In: Michalski, R., et al. (eds.) Machine Learning: An A. I. Approach, Tioga, Palo Alto, pp. 221–240 (1983)
Hurley, S.: Coherence, Hypothetical Cases, and Precedent. Oxford J. Legal Studies 10, 221–251 (1990)
Johnson, T.: Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the U. S. Supreme Court, SUNY (2004)
Kolodner, J.: Case-Based Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1993)
Lakatos, I.: Proofs and Refutations. Cambridge University Press, London (1976)
Landis, J., Koch, G.: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174 (1977)
Lenat, D.B., Brown, J.S.: Why AM and EURISKO appear to work. Artificial Intelligence 23(3), 269–294 (1984)
Lynch, C., Pinkwart, N., Ashley, K., Aleven, V.: What do argument diagrams tell us about students aptitude or experience? In: Workshop on ITSs for Ill-structured Domains, ITS 2008, Montreal (2008)
MacCormick, D., Summers, R. (eds.): Interpreting Precedents Ashgate/Dartmouth (1997)
Pease, A., Colton, S., Smaill, A., Lee, J.: Lakatos and Machine Creativity. In: Proceedings of the ECAI Creative Systems Workshop (2002)
Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V., Ashley, K., Lynch, C.: Evaluating legal argument instruction with graphical representations using LARGO. In: Proc. AIED 2007 (July 2007)
Pinkwart, N., Ashley, A., Aleven, V., Lynch, C.: Graph Grammars: an ITS Technology for Diagram Representations. In: Proc. 21st Int’l FLAIRS Conf., ITS Track, Coral Gables (May 2008)
Pinkwart, N., Lynch, C., Ashley, K., Aleven, V.: Re-evaluating LARGO in the Classroom: Are Diagrams Better than Text for Teaching Argumentation Skills? In: Woolf, B.P., Aïmeur, E., Nkambou, R., Lajoie, S. (eds.) ITS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5091, pp. 90–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Prettyman Jr., E.: The Supreme Court’s Use of Hypothetical Questions at Oral Argument. Catholic University Law Review 33, 555–591 (1984)
Rissland, E.: Constrained Example Generation. COINS TR 81-24. U. Mass (1981)
Rissland, E.: Dimension-based Analysis of Hypotheticals from Supreme Court Oral Argument. In: Proc. 2nd Int’l Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 111–120. ACM Press, New York (1989)
Stuckey, R., et al.: Best Practices for Legal Education, pp. 214–215. Clin. Leg. Ed. Assc. (2007)
Sullivan, W., Colby, A., Wegner, J., Bond, L., Shulman, L.: Educating Lawyers, 62, 66, 68, 75 The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2007)
Visser, W.: Reuse of Knowledge: Empirical Studies. In: Aamodt, A., Veloso, M.M. (eds.) ICCBR 1995. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1010, pp. 335–346. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ashley, K., Lynch, C., Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V. (2009). Toward Modeling and Teaching Legal Case-Based Adaptation with Expert Examples. In: McGinty, L., Wilson, D.C. (eds) Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development. ICCBR 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5650. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02998-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02998-1_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02997-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02998-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)