Skip to main content
Log in

CHIRON: Planning in an open-textured domain

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Planning problems arise in law when an individual (or corporation)wants to perform a sequence of actions that raises legal issues. Manylawyers make their living planning transactions, and a system thathelped them to solve these problems would be in demand.The designer of such a system in a common-law domain must addressseveral difficult issues, including the open-textured nature of legal rules,the relationship between legal rules and cases, the adversarial nature ofthe domain, and the role of argument. In addition, the system's design isconstrained by the fact that the intended users are lawyers, and its operation and output must be convenient for lawyers to use.In this article, I describe a system called CHIRON that I have developed to explore solutions to these issues. This system develops simple plans from representations of statutes and cases in the domain of United States personal income tax planning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Alterman, R. (1986). An Adaptive Planner, Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (reprinted in Proceedings of aWorkshop on Case-Based Reasoning, 1988, and Readings in Planning, edited by James Allen, James Hendler, and Austin Tate, Morgan Kaufman, 1990)

  • Ashley, K. D. (1988). Modelling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals, Technical Report 88-01, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Computer and Information Science. (Ph.D. Thesis).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. (1991). Modelling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals, MIT Press.

  • Ashley, K. D. and Rissland, E. L. (1987). Compare and Contrast, A Test of Expertise. In Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 273-278, Seattle, Washington.

  • Bareiss, R. (1988). Protos: A Unified Approach to Concept Representation, Classification, and Learning, Technical Report AI88-83, University of Texas at Austin. (Ph.D. Thesis).

  • Bench-Capon, T. and Sergot, M. J. (1988). Towards a Rule-Based Representation of Open Texture in Law. In Computer Power and Legal Language, 39-60, Quorum Books: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D. H. and Hafner, C. D. (1991). Incorporating Procedural Context into a Model of Case-Based Legal Reasoning, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12-20, Oxford.

  • Branting, L. K. (1988). The Role of Explanations in Reasoning from Legal Precedents, Proceedings of a Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, 94-103.

  • Branting, L. K. (1989a). Integrating Generalizations with Exemplar-Based Reasoning, Proceedings of a Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, 224-229.

  • Branting, L. K. (1989b). Integrating Generalizations with Exemplar-Based Reasoning, Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 139-146, Ann Arbor: Michigan.

  • Branting, L. K. (1989c). Representing and Reusing Explanations of Legal Precedents. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 103-110, Vancouver, British Columbia.

  • Branting, L. K. (1990a). Integrating Rules and Precedents for Classification and Explanation: Automating Legal Analysis. Technical Report AI90-146, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Department of Computer Sciences, University of Texas at Austin. (Ph.D. Thesis).

  • Branting, L. K. (1990b). Personal communication.

  • Branting, L. K. (1994). Personal communication.

  • Bratley, P., Fremont, J., Mackaay, E., and Poulin, D. (1990). Coping with Change. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 69-76, Oxford, England.

  • Chirelstein M. A. (1988). Federal Income Taxation: A Law Student's Guide to the Leading Cases and Concepts, Foundation Press: Westbury, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuthill, B.: (1992). Situation Analysis, Precedent Retrieval, and Cross-Context Reminding in Case-Based Reasoning, Technical Report CE-TR-92-3, University of Connecticut Department of Computer Science and Engineering. (Ph.D. Thesis).

  • Cuthill, B. and McCartney, R. (1993). Issue Spotting in Legal Cases. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 245-253. Amsterdam.

  • Fikes, R. and Nilsson, N. J. (1971). STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving. Artificial Intelligence 2: 189-208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, A.: (1987). An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, A. (1989). Representing Developing Legal Doctrine. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 16-22. Vancouver, British Columbia.

  • Garey, M. R. and Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and Intractability, W. H. Freeman and Company: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, S., Hendler, J., Kambhampati, S., and Kettler, B.: 1991, Common Lisp Implementation of NONLIN USER MANUAL. Computer Science Department, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golding, A. R. and Rosenbloom, P. S. (1991). Improving Rule-Based Systems Through Case-Based Reasoning, In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 22-27. Anaheim: California.

  • Gordon, T. F. (1993). The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice, Fachbereich Informatik der Technischen Hochschule, Darmstadt. (Ph.D. Thesis).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner, C. D. (1978). An Information Retrieval System Based on a Computer Model of Legal Knowledge. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan.

  • Hammond, K. J. (1986). Case-Based Planning: An Integrated Theory of Planning, Learning, and Memory. Technical Report YALEU/CSD/RR 488, Yale University Department of Computer Science. (Ph.D. Thesis).

  • Hammond, K. J. (1989). On Functionally Motivated Vocabularies: An Apologia. In Proceedings of a Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, 52-56.

  • Hanks, S. and Weld, D. S. (1992). Systematic Adaptation for Case-Based Planning. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, 96-105.

  • Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The Concept of Law, Clarendon Press: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendler, J. A.: 1995, Experimental AI Systems. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 7: 1-5. (editorial).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinrichs, T. R. (1991). Problem Solving in Open Worlds: A Case Study in Design. Technical Report GIT-CC-91/36, Georgia Institute of Technology. (Ph.D. Thesis).

  • Hinrichs, T. R. and Kolodner, J. (1991). The Roles of Adaptation in Case-Based Design. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Anaheim: California.

  • Hughes, G. and Cresswell, M. J. (1968). An Introduction to Modal Logic, Methuen: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kambhampati, S. and Hendler, J. A. (1989). Control of Refitting During Plan Reuse. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 943-948. Detroit, Michigan.

  • Klein, G. R. and Calderwood, R. (1988). How Do People Use Analogues to Make Decisions? In Proceedings of a Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, 209-223.

  • Lakatos, I.: Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England.

  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, E. H. (1949). An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lifschitz, V. (1987). Formal Theories of Action. In Proceedings of the 1987 Workshop on the Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence.

  • Llewellyn, K. N. (1930). The Bramble Bush: Our Law and Its Study. Oceana Publications, Dobbs Ferry: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. P., Norman, J., Olson, J., and Merrill, A. (1993). A Design for Reasoning with Policies, Precedents, and Rationales. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 202-211, Amsterdam.

  • McCartney, R. (1993). Planning from Partial and Multiple Episodes in a Case-Based Planner. In Proceedings of the 1993 AAAI Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, 94-100. Washington, D.C.

  • McCartney, R. and Sanders, K. E. (1990). The Case for Cases: A Call for Purity in Case-Based Reasoning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium on Case-Based Reasoning, 12-16.

  • McCartney, R. and Wurst, K. R. (1991). DEFARGE: A Real-Time Execution Monitor for a Case-Based Planner. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, 233-244.

  • McCarty, L. T. (1977). Reflections on TAXMAN: An Experiment in Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning, Harvard Law Review 90: 837-893.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. (1980). The TAXMAN Project: Towards a Cognitive Theory of Legal Argument. In B. Niblett (ed.), Computer Science and Law, 23-43. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. (1983). Permissions and Obligations, Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 287-294. Karlsruhe, West Germany.

  • McCarty, L. T. (1986). Permissions and Obligations: An Informal Introduction, Technical Report LRP-TR-19, Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers University.

  • McCarty, L. T. (1989a). Computing with Prototypes (Preliminary Report). In Proceedings of the Bar-Ilan Symposium on the Foundations of Artificial Intelligence.

  • McCarty, L. T. (1989b). A Language for Legal Discourse: I. Basic Features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 180-189. Vancouver, British Columbia.

  • McCarty, L. T. and Sridharan, N. S. (1982). A Computational Theory of Legal Argument, Technical Report LRP-TR-13, Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers University.

  • McDermott, D. (1985). The DUCK Manual, Technical Report YALEU/CSD/RR 399, Yale University Department of Computer Science.

  • Oskamp, A., Walker, R. F., Schrickx, J. A., and van den Berg, P. H. (1989). Prolexs, Divide and Rule: A Legal Application. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 54-62. Vancouver, British Columbia.

  • Redmond, M. (1990). Distributed Cases for Case-Based Reasoning; Facilitating Use of Multiple Cases. In Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 304-309. Boston, MA.

  • Riesbeck, C. K. and Schank, R. C. (1989). Inside Case-based Reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland (Michener), E. (1978). Epistemology, Representation, Understanding and Interactive Exploration of Mathematical Theories, Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Ph.D. Thesis).

  • Rissland, E. L. (1982). Examples in the Legal Domain: Hypotheticals in Contract Law, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference on Cognitive Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

  • Rissland, E. L., Daniels, J. J., Rubinstein, Z. B., and Skalak, D. B. (1993a). Case-Based Diagnostic Analysis in a Blackboard Architecture, Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Washington, D.C.

  • Rissland, E. L., Daniels, J. J., Rubinstein, Z. B., and Skalak, D. B. (1993b). Diagnostic Case Retrieval Guided by Evaluation and Feedback, Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, Washington, D.C.

  • Rissland, E. L., Skalak, D. B., and Friedman, M. T. (1994). Heuristic Harvesting of Information for Case-Based Argument, Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36-43. Seattle, Washington.

  • Rissland, E. L. and Soloway, E.M. (1980). Overview of an Example Generation System, Proceedings of the First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 256-258.

  • Rissland, E. L. and Skalak, D. B. (1989a). Case-Based Reasoning in a Rule-Governed Domain, Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications, Miami, Florida, 45-53.

  • Rissland, E. L. and Skalak, D. B. (1989b). Interpreting Statutory Predicates, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vancouver, British Columbia, 46-53.

  • Rissland, E. L. and Skalak, D. B. (1989c). Combining Case-Based and Rule-Based Reasoning: A Heuristic Approach, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 524-530. Detroit, Michigan.

  • Rissland, E. L. and Skalak, D. B. (1991). CABARET: Rule Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 839-887.

  • Rosch, E. and Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family Resemblance: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychology 7: 573-605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacerdoti, E. (1974). Planning in a Hierarchy of Abstraction Spaces. Artificial Intelligence 7: 231-272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, K. E. (1989a). A Logic for Emotions: A Basis for Reasoning about Commonsense Psychological Knowledge, Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

  • Sanders, K. E. (1989b). A Logic for Emotions: A Basis for Reasoning about Commonsense Psychological Knowledge, Brown University Computer Science Department, 89-23.

  • Sanders, K. E. (1990). The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth: Case Representations for Legal Reasoning Systems, Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Legal Reasoning, Boston, MA.

  • Sanders, K. E. (1991a). Representing and Reasoning about Open-Textured Predicates, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Oxford, England, 137-144.

  • Sanders, K. E. (1991b). Within the Letter of the Law: Planning Among Multiple Cases, Proceedings of the DARPA Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, Washington, D.C.

  • Sanders, K. E. (1993). If It Worked Last Time, It Should Work Again: Justifying and Validating Case-Based Plans, Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning.

  • Sanders, K. E. (1994). CHIRON: Planning in an Open-Textured Domain, Computer Science Department, Brown University, 94-38. (Ph.D. Thesis).

  • Sanders, K. E., Kettler, B. P., and Hendler, J. A. (1997). The Case for Structure-Based Representations, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, Providence, Rhode Island.

  • Schlobohm, D. and McCarty, L. T. (1989). EPS II: Estate Planning with Prototypes, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1-10. Vancouver, British Columbia.

  • Sergot, M. J., Sadri, F., Kowalski, R. A., Kriwaczek, F., Hammond, P., and Cory, H. T. (1986). The British Nationality Act as a Logic Program. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 29(5): 370-386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoham, Y. (1988). Reasoning about Change: Time and Causation from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skalak, D. B. (1989a). Options for Controlling Mixed Paradigm Systems, Proceedings of a Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, 318-323.

  • Skalak, D. B. (1989b). Taking Advantage of Models for Legal Classification, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vancouver, 234-241. British Columbia.

  • Skalak, D. B. and Rissland, E. L. (1992). Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law: An International Journal 1(1), 3-44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statsky, W. P. and Wernet, Jr., R. J. (1989). Case Analysis and Fundamentals of Legal Writing, West Publishing Company: St. Paul, MN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate, A. (1976). Project Planning Using a Hierarchic Non-Linear Planner, Technical Report 245, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh.

  • Tate, A. (1977). Generating Project Networks, Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 888-893.

  • Veloso, M. M. (1992). Learning by Analogical Reasoning in General Problem Solving, Technical Report CMU-CS-92-174, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University (Ph.D. Thesis).

  • Waismann, F. (1965). Verifiability. In A. Flew (ed.), Logic and Language: First and Second Series, 122-151. Anchor Books: Garden City, NJ. (First Published in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 119-150 (1945).)

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, D. L. (1989). Is Indexing Used for Retrieval?, Proceedings of a Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, 41-44.

  • Waterman, D. A. (1986). A Guide to Expert Systems, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company: Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zito-Wolf, R. and Alterman, R. (1992). Multicases: A Case-Based Representation for Procedural Knowledge, Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sanders, K.E. CHIRON: Planning in an open-textured domain. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9, 225–269 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013824413224

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013824413224

Keywords

Navigation