Emerging AI & Law approaches to automating analysis and retrieval of electronically stored information in discovery proceedings

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 311-320

  Ashley, Kevin D ^a   Bridewell, Will ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

E discovery; Legal ontologies; Litigators' relevance hypotheses; Machine learning; Social networks; User modeling

Indexed keywords

E-DISCOVERY; LEGAL ONTOLOGY; LITIGATORS' RELEVANCE HYPOTHESES; MACHINE LEARNING; SOCIAL NETWORKS; USER MODELING;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DECISION MAKING; ELECTRIC NETWORK ANALYSIS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; LEARNING SYSTEMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

ONTOLOGY;

EID: 79951767645     PISSN: 09248463     EISSN: 15728382     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10506-010-9098-4     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Agrawal R, Rajagopalan S, Srikant R, Xu Y (2003) Mining newsgroups using networks arising from social behavior. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on world wide web, ACM Press, Budapest, Hungary, pp 529-535
2. Ashley K (2007) Can AI & Law contribute to managing electronically stored information in discovery proceedings? Some points of tangency; position paper; ICAIL 2007 workshop on supporting search and sensemaking for electronically stored information in discovery proceedings (DESI). Stanford. http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~oard/desi-ws/
3. Ashley K, Bridewell W (2007) III-CXT-Medium: Tracing information flow to improve legal e-discovery. NSF Proposal No. 0803049. Declined
4. Ashley K, Brüninghaus S (2009) Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artif Intell Law 17(2):125-165
5. Attfield S, Blandford A (2010) Discovery-led refinement in e-discovery investigations: Sensemaking, cognitive ergonomics and system design. Artificial intelligence and law special issue on e-discovery (this issue)
6. Baron JR, Thompson P (2007) The search problem posed by large heterogeneous data sets in litigation: Possible future approaches to research. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international confe (Pubitemid 47281672)
7. Bauer R, Jade T, Hedin B, Hogan C (2008) Automated legal sensemaking: The centrality of relevance and intentionality. In: Proceedings 2nd intl. workshop on supporting search & sensemaking for electronically stored information in discovery, London, June. http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/9131/1/ 9131.pdf
8. Breuker J, Valente A, Winkels R (2004) Legal ontologies in knowledge engineering and information management. Artificial intelligence and law, Vol 12(4). Springer, pp 241-277
9. Buchanan B, Headrick T (1970) Some speculation about artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Stanford Law Rev 23:40-62
10. Conrad J (2010) E-Discovery revisited: The need for artificial intelligence beyond information retrieval. Artificial intelligence and law special issue on e-discovery (this issue)
11. Curran J, Clark S (2003) Language independent NER using a maximum entropy tagger. In: Proceedings of the seventh conference on natural language learning (CoNLL), pp 164-167
12. Daniels J, Rissland E (1997) Finding legally relevant passages in case opinions. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, Melbourne, Australia, pp 39-46
13. Eichmann D, Chin S-C (2007) Concepts, semantics, and syntax in E-Discovery. In: ICAIL 2007 workshop on supporting search and sensemaking for electronically stored information in discovery proceedings (DESI Workshop)
14. Gonçalves T, Quaresma P (2005) Is linguistic information relevant for the text legal classification problem? In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, Bologna, Italy, pp 168-176
15. Grover C, Hachey B, Hughson I, Korycinski C (2003) Automatic summarisation of legal documents. In: Proceedings of ninth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, Edinburgh, Scotland, pp 243-251
16. Hachey B, Grover C (2006) Extractive summarization of legal texts. Artif Intell Law 14:305-345
17. Henseler H (2010) Network-based filtering for large email collections in e-discovery. In: Artificial intelligence and law special issue on e-discovery (this issue)
18. Hogan C, Bauer R, Brassil D (2009) Human-aided computer cognition for e-discovery. In: Proceedings of 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL-09), Barcelona, pp 194-201
19. Hogan C, Bauer R, Brassil D (2010) Automation of legal sensemaking in e-discovery. In: Artificial intelligence and law special issue on e-discovery (this issue)
20. Jackson P, Al-Kofahi K, Tyrrell A, Vachher A (2003) Information extraction from case law and retrieval of prior cases. Artif Intell 150:239-290
21. Kossinets G, Watts D (2006) Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science 311:88-90 (Pubitemid 43063064)
22. McCarty LT (2007) Deep semantic interpretations of legal texts. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, Stanford, CA, pp 217-224 (Pubitemid 47281684)
23. Mustafaraj E, Hoof M, Freisleben B (2007) Knowledge extraction and summarization for an application of textual case-based interpretation. In: Weber RO, Richter MM (eds) Proceedings of the 6th ICCBR conference, ICCBR 2007, LNAI 4626, pp 517-531
24. Oard D, Baron J, Hedin B, Lewis D, Tomlinson S (2010) Evaluation of information retrieval for ediscovery. Artificial intelligence and law special issue on e-discovery (this issue)
25. Privault C, O'Neill J, Ciriza V, Renders J-M (2010) A new tangible user interface for machine learning document review. In: Artificial intelligence and law special issue on e-discovery (this issue)
26. Racunas SA, Shah NH, Albert I, Fedoroff NV (2004) HyBrow: A prototype system for computer-aided hypothesis evaluation. Bioinformatics 20:i257-i264 (Pubitemid 41296697)
27. Schank R (1986) Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale
28. Schwartz MF, Wood DCM (1993) Discovering shared interests using graph analysis. Commun ACM 36:78-89
29. Thagard P (1999) How scientists explain disease. Princeton University Press, Princeton
30. Thompson P (2001) Automatic categorization of case law. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, St. Louis, MO, pp 70-77
31. Tillers P (ed) (2007) Special issue on graphic and visual representations of evidence and inference in legal settings. In: Law, Probability, and Risk, vol 6, pp 1-4
32. Uyttendaele C, Moens M, Dumortier J (1998) SALOMON: Automatic abstracting of legal cases for effective access to court decisions. Artif Intell Law 6:59-79 (Pubitemid 128512376)
33. Weber R (1998) Intelligent jurisprudence research, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil, unpublished doctoral dissertation
34. Wilson T (2008) Fine-grained subjectivity and sentiment analysis: Recognizing the intensity, polarity, and attitudes of private states. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh Intelligent Systems Program. http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/twilson/dissertation.html
35. Withers K (2006) Electronically stored information: The December 2006 amendments to the federal rules of civil procedure. Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property, 4, (Property 171) at http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v4/n2/3