Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts

Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 225-230

  Moens, Marie Francine ^a   Boiy, Erik ^a   Palau, Raquel Mochales ^a   Reed, Chris ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Argument recognition; Discourse analysis; Information extraction; Machine learning

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION); INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; LEARNING SYSTEMS; SEMANTICS; SYNTACTICS;

ARGUMENT RECOGNITION; DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; DISCOURSE PROPERTIES; INFORMATION EXTRACTION;

TEXT PROCESSING;

EID: 34548009846     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1276318.1276362     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. J. Allen. Natural Language Understanding (2nd ed.). Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA, 1995.
2. K. Ashley. Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1990.
3. T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Argument in artificial intelligence and law. Artif. Intell. Law, 5(4):249-261, 1997.
4. 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.
5. K. Branting. Reasoning with Rules and Precedents: a Computational Model of Legal Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht ; Boston, 2000.
6. 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.
7. E. Charniak. A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. Technical Report CS-99-12, 1999.
8. K. Deschacht and M.-F. Moens. Text Processing Tools. Technical Report, K.U.Leuven, 2006.
9. 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.
10. T. Gordon. The Pleadings Game. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1995.
11. B. Hachey and C. Grover. Automatic legal text summarisation: Experiments with summary structuring. In ICAIL '05, pages 75-84, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM.
12. H. Horacek and M. Wolska. Interpreting semi-formal utterances in dialogs about mathematical proofs. Data Knowl. Eng., 58(1):90-106, 2006.
13. E. H. Hovy. Automated discourse generation using discourse structure relations. Artificial Intelligence, 63(1-2):341-385, 1993.
14. J. Katzav and C Reed. On argumentation schemes and the natural classification of arguments. Argumentation, 18, June 2004.
15. W. Kintsch. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge University, 1998.
16. A. Knott and R. Dale. Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of rhetorical relations. Technical Report HCRC/RP-39, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1993.
17. W. Mann and S. Thompson. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of organization. Technical Report, 1988.
18. D. Marcu. The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. MIT, Cambridge, MA, 2000.
19. D. Marcu and A. Echihabi. An unsupervised approach to recognizing discourse relations, 2002.
20. 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.
21. H. Prakken. Analysing reasoning about evidence with formal models of argumentation. Law, Probability and Risk, 3:33-50, 2004.
22. 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.
23. C Reed and G. Rowe. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools, (14 (3 - 4)):961 -980, 2004.
24. G. Sartor. Legal reasoning, a cognitive approach to the law. In A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence, Volume 5. Springer, 2005.
25. S. E. Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. University Printing House, Cambridge, Bentley House, 200 Euston Road, London N.W.I., 1958.
26. B. Verheij. Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. TMC Asser, The Hague, 1998.
27. 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.
28. D. Walton. Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law. Springer, 2005.
29. T. Winograd. Understanding Natural Language. Academic, Inc., Orlando, FL, USA, 1972.
30. F. Wolf and E. Gibson. Coherence in Natural Language. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts,USA, 2006.