Marie-Francine Moens
ABSTRACT
This paper provides the results of experiments on the detection of arguments in texts among which are legal texts. The detection is seen as a classification problem. A classifier is trained on a set of annotated arguments. Different feature sets are evaluated involving lexical, syntactic, semantic and discourse properties of the texts. The experiments are a first step in the context of automatically classifying arguments in legal texts according to their rhetorical type and their visualization for convenient access and search.
- J. Allen. Natural Language Understanding (2nd ed.). Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA, 1995. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- K. Ashley. Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1990. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Argument in artificial intelligence and law. Artif. Intell. Law, 5(4):249--261, 1997.Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. L. Berger, S. D. Pietra, and V. J. D. Pietra. A maximum entropy approach to natural language processing. Computational Linguistics, 22(1):39--71, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Branting. Reasoning with Rules and Precedents: a Computational Model of Legal Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht; Boston, 2000.Google Scholar
- S. Brüninghaus and K. D. Ashley. Generating legal arguments and predictions from case texts. In ICAIL '05, pages 65--74, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Charniak. A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. Technical Report CS-99-12, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Deschacht and M.-F. Moens. Text Processing Tools. Technical Report, K. U. Leuven, 2006.Google Scholar
- E. T. Feteris. A dialogical theory of legal discussions: Pragma-dialectical analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation. Artif. Intell. Law, 8(2/3):115--135, 2000.Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Gordon. The Pleadings Game. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1995.Google Scholar
- B. Hachey and C. Grover. Automatic legal text summarisation: Experiments with summary structuring. In ICAIL '05, pages 74--84, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Horacek and M. Wolska. Interpreting semi-formal utterances in dialogs about mathematical proofs. Data Knowl. Eng., 58(1):90--106, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. H. Hovy. Automated discourse generation using discourse structure relations. Artificial Intelligence, 63(1--2):341--385, 1993. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Katzav and C. Reed. On argumentation schemes and the natural classification of arguments. Argumentation, 18, June 2004.Google Scholar
- W. Kintsch. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge University, 1998.Google Scholar
- A. Knott and R. Dale. Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of rhetorical relations. Technical Report HCRC/RP-39, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1993.Google Scholar
- W. Mann and S. Thompson. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of organization. Technical Report, 1988.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Marcu. The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. MIT, Cambridge, MA, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Marcu and A. Echihabi. An unsupervised approach to recognizing discourse relations, 2002.Google Scholar
- A. McCallum and K. Nigam. A comparison of event models for naive bayes text classification. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ICML-98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization, pages 41--48. AAAI Press, 1998.Google Scholar
- H. Prakken. Analysing reasoning about evidence with formal models of argumentation. Law, Probability and Risk, 3:33--50, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D. Walton. Argumentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence. In ICAIL '03, pages 32--41, New York, NY, USA, 2003. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Reed and G. Rowe. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools, (14 (3 - 4)):961--980, 2004.Google Scholar
- G. Sartor. Legal reasoning, a cognitive approach to the law. In A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence, Volume 5. Springer, 2005.Google Scholar
- S. E. Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. University Printing House, Cambridge, Bentley House, 200 Euston Road, London N. W. I., 1958.Google Scholar
- B. Verheij. Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. T M C Asser, The Hague, 1998.Google Scholar
- C. M. W. Mann and S. Thompson. Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, pages 39--78. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 1992.Google Scholar
- D. Walton. Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law. Springer, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Winograd. Understanding Natural Language. Academic, Inc., Orlando, FL, USA, 1972. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Wolf and E. Gibson. Coherence in Natural Language. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 2006.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts
Recommendations
Study on Sentence Relations in the Automatic Detection of Argumentation in Legal Cases
Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual ConferenceWe report the results of experiments which prove that the analysis of relations between sentences increase the accuracy in the automatic detection of arguments in legal cases. We treat the search of arguments as a classification problem. Our corpus is a ...
A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning
Inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents a formal framework for assessing conflicting arguments. Its use is illustrated with applications to realistic legal examples, and the potential for implementation is discussed. The framework has the form ...
Comments