Understanding Similarity: A Joint Project for Psychology, Case-Based Reasoning, and Law

Artificial Intelligence Review

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 393-427

  Hahn, Ulrike ^a,b   Chater, Nick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Artificial Intelligence and Law; Case based reasoning; Exemplar models; Legal reasoning; Similarity

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PSYCHOLOGY COMPUTING;

CASE-BASED REASONING (CBR); EXEMPLAR-MODELS; LEGAL REASONING;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 0032188578     PISSN: 02692821     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1006512431942     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Aamodt, A. & Plaza, E. (1994). Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Communications 7: 39-59.
2. Aha, D. W. & Goldstone, R. L. (1992). Concept learning and flexible weighting. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum.
3. Ashley, K. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument-Reasoning with Cases and Hypothetical. MIT press.
4. Ashley, K. & Rissland, E. (1988). Waiting on Weighting: a Symbolic Least Commitment Approach. In Proceedings: AAAI - 88. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
5. Bankowski, Z., White, I. & Hahn, U. (eds.). (1995). Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning. Kluwer.
6. Barsalou, L. (1989). Intraconcept Similarity and its Implications for Interconcept Similarity. In Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, chap. 3. Cambridge University Press.
7. Bartsch-Spörl, B. (1992). Warum es für die Bestimmung von Ähnlichkeit von Fällen beim fallbasierten Schliessen noch keine Patentrezepte gibt und auch keine geben wird . . . In Althoff, K., Wess, S., Bartsch-Spörl, B. & Janetzko, D. (eds.), Workshop: Ähnlichkeit von Fällen beim fallbasierten Schliessen. SEKI Working Paper SWP-92-11 (SFB).
8. Berry, D. & Broadbent, D. (1984). On the Relationship between Task Performance and Associated Verbalizable Knowledge. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 36a: 209-231.
9. Branting, K. (1989). Representing and Reusing Explanations of Legal Precedents. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.
10. Branting, K. (1991a). Integrating Rules and Precedents for Classification and Explanation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
11. Branting, K. (1991b). Reasoning with Portions of Precedents. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.
12. Branting, K. (1993). A reduction-graph model of ratio decidendi. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.
13. Cross, R. (1977). Precedent in English Law (3rd edition). Clarendon Press, Oxford.
14. Dayal, S., Harmer, M., Johnson, P. & Mead, D. (1993). Beyond Knowledge Representation: Commercial Uses for Legal Knowledge Bases. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.
15. Dworkin, R. (1977). No Right Answer?. In Hacker, P. & Raz, J. (eds.), Law, Morality and Society: Essays in Honour of H.L.A. Hart. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
16. Garner, W. (1978). Aspects of a Stimulus: Features, Dimensions, and Configurations. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Erlbaum.
17. Gati, I. & Tversky, A. (1984). Weighting Common and Distinctive Features in Perceptual and Conceptual Judgements. Cognitive Psychology 16: 341-370.
18. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, chap. 7. Cambridge University Press.
19. Gentner, D. & Forbus, K. D. (1991). MAC/FAC: A Model of Similarity-based Retrieval. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum.
20. Georgin, E., Bordin, F. & McDonald, J. (1995). CBR applied to fault diagnosis on steam turbines. In Watson, I., Marir, F. & Perera, S. (eds.), First United Kingdom Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning.
21. Goldstone, R. (1994a). The Role of Similarity in Categorization: Providing a Groundwork. Cognition 52: 125-157.
22. Goldstone, R. (1994b). Similarity, Interactive Activation, and Mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20: 3-28.
23. Goldstone, R., Medin, D. & Gentner, D. (1991). Relational Similarity and the Nonindependance of Features in Similarity Judgements. Cognitive Psychology 23: 222-262.
24. Goodman, N. (1972). Problems and Projects, chap. Seven Strictures on Similarity. Bobbs Merill Comp.
25. Gordon, T. (1993). The Pleadings Game - Formalizing Procedural Justice. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.
26. Griggs, R. A. & Cox, J. R. (1982). The elusive thematic-materials effect in Wason's selection task. British Journal of Psychology 73: 407-420.
27. Hahn, U. & Chater, N. (1994). Similarity in Legal Reasoning - an Experimental Approach. Unpublished manuscript.
28. Hahn, U. & Chater, N. (1997). Concepts and Similarity. In Lamberts, K. & Shanks, D. (eds.), Knowledge, Concepts, and Categories (forthcoming). Psychology Press/MIT Press.
29. Hahn, U., Chater, N. & Henley, R. (1996). Weighting in Similarity Judgements: Investigating the MAX Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
30. Haigh, K. & Shewchuk, J. (1994). Geometric Similarity Metrics for Case-Based Reasoning. In Proceedings: 1994 AAAI workshop on case-based reasoning. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
31. Herbig, B. & Wess, S. (1992). Ähnlichkeit und Ähnlichkeitsmasse. In Fall-basiertes Schliessen - Eine Übersicht. SEKI Working papers SWP-92-08, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany.
32. Hintzman, D. (1986). "Schema abstraction" in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review 93: 411-428.
33. Janetzko, D., Melis, E. & Wess, S. (1993). System and Processing View in Similarity Assessment. In Richter, M., Wess, S., Althoff, K. & Maurer, F. (ed.), Presentations and Posters: First European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. SEKI Report SR-93-12 (SFB 314).
34. Kolodner, J. (1991). Improving Human Decision Making through Case-Based Decision Aiding. AI Magazine, 52-68.
35. Kolodner, J. (1992). An Introduction to Case-Based Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review 6: 3-34.
36. Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-based reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann.
37. Levi, E. H. (1949). An Introduction To Legal Reasoning. University of Chicago Press.
38. Llewellyn, K. N. (1930). The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study (1960 edition). Oceana Publications.
39. MacCormick, N. (1987). Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Clarendon.
40. Medin, D., Dewey, G. & Murphy, T. (1983). Relationships Between Item and Category Learning: Evidence that Abstraction Is Not Automatic. Journal of Experimental Psychology 9: 607-625.
41. Medin, D., Goldstone, R. & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for Similarity. Psychological Review 100: 254-278.
42. Medin, D. & Schaffer, M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review 85: 207-238.
43. Mendelson, S. (1989). An attempted dimensional analysis of the law governing government appeals. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.
44. Murphy, G. & Medin, D. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review 92: 289-316.
45. Murray, J. L. (1982). The Role of Analogy in Legal Reasoning. UCLA Law Review 29: 833-871.
46. Nosofsky, R. (1984). Choice, Similarity and the Context Theory of Classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 10: 104-114.
47. Nosofsky, R. (1988). Exemplar-based Accounts of Relations between Classification, Recognition, and Typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 14: 700-708.
48. Nosofsky, R. (1990). Relations between Exemplar-Similarity and Likelihood Models of Classification. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 34.
49. Nosofsky, R. (1992). Exemplars, Prototypes, and Similarity Rules. In Healy, A., Kosslyn, S. & Shiffrin, R. (eds.), From Learning Theory to Connectionist Theory: Essays in Honor of William K. Estes. Erlbaum.
50. Nosofsky, R. (1994). Rule-Plus-Exception Model of Classification Learning. Psychological Review 101: 53-79.
51. Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (1991). Against Logicist Cognitive Science. Mind and Language 6: 1-38.
52. Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann.
53. Porter, B., Bareiss, R. & Holte, R. (1990). Concept Learning and Heuristic Classification. Artificial Intelligence 45: 229-263.
54. Price, C. & Pegler, I. (1995). Deciding Parameter Values with Case-Based Reasoning. In Watson, I., Marir, F. & Perera, S. (eds.), First United Kingdom Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning.
55. Raz, J. (1979). The Authority of Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
56. Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118.
57. Redington, M. & Chater, N. (1995). Transfer in Artificial Grammar Learning: A Re-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General forthcoming.
58. Riesbeck, C. & Schank, R. (1989). Inside Case-based Reasoning. Erlbaum.
59. Rips, L. (1975). Inductive Judgements about Natural Categories. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 14: 665-681.
60. Rissland, E., Skalak, D. & Friedman, M. (1993). BankXX: A program to generate argument through case-based search. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.
61. Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (1978). Process. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Erlbaum.
62. Ross, B. (1987). This Is Like That: The Use of Earlier Problems and the Separation of Similarity Effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 13: 629-637.
63. Ross, B. (1989). Some Psychological Results on Case-Based Reasoning. In Proceedings of the workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, pp. 144-148.
64. Ross, B., Perkins, S. & Tenpenny, P. (1990). Reminding-based Category Learning. Cognitive Psychology 22: 460-492.
65. Sanders, K. (1994). CHIRON: planning in an open-textured domain. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, Brown University, Providence, R.I.
66. Sartor, G. (1991). The structure of norm conditions and non-monotonic reasoning in law. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.
67. Sartor, G. (1993). A simple computational model for non-monotonic and adversarial legal reasoning. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.
68. Sartor, G. (1995). Defeasibility in Legal Reasoning. In Bankowski, Z., White, I. & Hahn, U. (eds.), Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
69. Schank, R. (1982). Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge University Press.
70. Shanks, D. & John, M. S. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17: 367-395.
71. Shepard, R. (1980). Multidimensional Scaling, Tree-fitting, and Clustering. Science 210: 390-399.
72. Shepard, R. (1987). Toward a Universal Law of Generalization for Psychological Science. Science 237: 1317-1323.
73. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C. & Scheines, R. (1993). Causation, Prediction, and Search. Springer Verlag.
74. Stone, R. (1994). Contract Law. Cavendish.
75. Susskind, R. (1987). Expert Systems in Law. Oxford University Press.
76. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of Similarity. Psychological Review 84: 327-352.
77. Tversky, A. & Gati, I. (1978). Studies of Similarity. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Erlbaum.
78. Tversky, A. & Gati, I. (1982). Similarity, separability and the triangle inequality. Psychological Review 89: 123-154.
79. Weir, T. (1988). A Casebook on Tort (6 edition). Sweet and Maxwell.
80. Yang, S., Robertson, D. & Lee, J. (1993a). KICS: a knowledge-intensive case-based reasoning system for statutory building regulations and case histories. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM.
81. Yang, S., Robertson, D. & Less, J. (1993b). Use of Case Based Reasoning in the Domain of Building Regulations. In Richter, M., Wess, S., Althoff, K. & Maurer, F. (eds.), Presentations and Posters: First European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning. SEKI Report SR-93-12 (SFB 314).