• Summary
• Related Documents
  • Active Bibliography
  • Co-citation
• Version History

Abstract:

In this paper we discuss a view of the machine { learning technique called Explanation { Based Learning (EBL) or Explanation { Based Generalization (EBG) as a process for the interpretation of vague concepts in logic-based models of law. The open-textured nature of legal terms is a well-known open problem in the building of knowledge-based legal systems. EBG is a technique which creates generalizations of given examples on the basis of background domain knowledge. We relate these two topics by considering EBG's domain knowledge as corresponding to statute law rules, and EBG's training example as corresponding to a precedent case. By making the interpretation of vague predicates as guided by precedent cases, we use EBG as an eective process capable of creating a link between predicates appearing as open-textured concepts in law rules, and predicates appearing as ordinary language wording for stating the facts of a case. Standard EBG algorithms do not change the deductive closure of the domain theory. In the legal context, this is only adequate when concepts vaguely dened in some law rules can be reformulated in terms of other concepts more precisely de ned in other rules. We call 'theory reformulation ' the process adopted in this situation of 'complete knowledge'. In many cases, however, statutory law leaves some concepts completely unde-ned. We then propose extensions to EBG standard that deal with this situation of 'incomplete knowledge', and call 'theory revision ' the extended process. In order to ll in 'knowledge gaps ' we consider precedent cases supplemented by additional heuristic information. The extensions proposed treat heuristics represented by abstraction hierarchies with constraints and exceptions. In the paper we also precisely characterize the distinction between theory reformulation and theory revision by stating formal denitions and results, in the 1 context of the logic programming theory. We oer this proposal as a possible contribution to cross fertilization between machine learning and legal reasoning methods. 1

Citations