Hace ya más de 40 años desde que se comenzase a explorar las posibilidades de emplear inteligencia artificial en el campo del derecho. Existen numerosos usos y propuestas en el marco de la IA y el derecho, desde la automatización de la búsqueda de la información jurídica hasta la personalización del derecho. Estas propuestas plantean diversas cuestiones relacionadas con la filosofía del derecho. La proliferación de propuestas, en ocasiones, dificulta identificar la relación existente entre cada una de ellas con debates (...) específicos de la filosofía del derecho. Este trabajo ofrece una clasificación de usos de la IA jurídica que facilita la identificación de los temas de filosofía de derecho especialmente afectados por cada uso. Se propone distinguir tres grandes categorías: derecho formalizado, práctica jurídica algorítmica, y derecho personalizado. Esta propuesta incorpora los avances recientes en machine learning y propuestas novedosas como la personalización del derecho. Con esta clasificación resulta más sencillo identificar las premisas iusfilosóficas en que se asientan o sobre las que deben reflexionar los diversos proyectos de empleo de IA en el derecho. (shrink)

Automated legal reasoning and its application in smart contracts and automated decisions are increasingly attracting interest. In this context, ethical and legal concerns make it necessary for automated reasoners to justify in human-understandable terms the advice given. Logic Programming, specially Answer Set Programming, has a rich semantics and has been used to very concisely express complex knowledge. However, modelling discretionality to act and other vague concepts such as ambiguity cannot be expressed in top-down execution models based on Prolog, and in (...) bottom-up execution models based on ASP the justifications are incomplete and/or not scalable. We propose to use s(CASP), a top-down execution model for predicate ASP, to model vague concepts following a set of patterns. We have implemented a framework, called s(LAW), to model, reason, and justify the applicable legislation and validate it by translating (and benchmarking) a representative use case, the criteria for the admission of students in the “Comunidad de Madrid”. (shrink)

This work aims to explore the application of deep learning-based artificial intelligence technology in sentencing, to promote the reform and innovation of the judicial system. First, the concept and the principles of sentencing are introduced, and the deep learning model of intelligent robot in trials is proposed. According to related concepts, the issues that need to be solved in artificial intelligence sentencing based on deep learning are introduced. The deep learning model is integrated into the intelligent robot system, to assist (...) in the sentencing of cases. Finally, an example is adopted to illustrate the feasibility of the intelligent robot under deep learning in legal sentencing. The results show that the general final trial periods for cases of traffic accidents, copyright information, trademark infringement, copyright protection, and theft are 1,049, 796, 663, 847, and 201 days, respectively; while the final trial period under artificial intelligence evaluation based on the restricted Boltzmann deep learning model is 458, 387, 376, 438, and 247 days, respectively. The accuracy of trials is above 92%, showing a high application value. It can be observed that expect theft cases, the final trial period for others cases has been effectively reduced. The intelligent robot assistance under the restricted Boltzmann deep learning model can shorten the trial period of cases. The deep learning intelligent robot has a certain auxiliary role in legal sentencing, and this outcome provides a theoretical basis for the research of artificial intelligence technology in legal sentencing. (shrink)

The first issue of Artificial Intelligence and Law journal was published in 1992. This paper offers some commentaries on papers drawn from the Journal’s third decade. They indicate a major shift within Artificial Intelligence, both generally and in AI and Law: away from symbolic techniques to those based on Machine Learning approaches, especially those based on Natural Language texts rather than feature sets. Eight papers are discussed: two concern the management and use of documents available on the World Wide Web, (...) and six apply machine learning techniques to a variety of legal applications. (shrink)

This paper proposes a formal top-level model of explaining the outputs of machine-learning-based decision-making applications and evaluates it experimentally with three data sets. The model draws on AI & law research on argumentation with cases, which models how lawyers draw analogies to past cases and discuss their relevant similarities and differences in terms of relevant factors and dimensions in the problem domain. A case-based approach is natural since the input data of machine-learning applications can be seen as cases. While the (...) approach is motivated by legal decision making, it also applies to other kinds of decision making, such as commercial decisions about loan applications or employee hiring, as long as the outcome is binary and the input conforms to this paper’s factor- or dimension format. The model is top-level in that it can be extended with more refined accounts of similarities and differences between cases. It is shown to overcome several limitations of similar argumentation-based explanation models, which only have binary features and do not represent the tendency of features towards particular outcomes. The results of the experimental evaluation studies indicate that the model may be feasible in practice, but that further development and experimentation is needed to confirm its usefulness as an explanation model. Main challenges here are selecting from a large number of possible explanations, reducing the number of features in the explanations and adding more meaningful information to them. It also remains to be investigated how suitable our approach is for explaining non-linear models. (shrink)

Deep learning and other black-box models are becoming more and more popular today. Despite their high performance, they may not be accepted ethically or legally because of their lack of explainability. This paper presents the increasing number of legal requirements on machine learning model interpretability and explainability in the context of private and public decision making. It then explains how those legal requirements can be implemented into machine-learning models and concludes with a call for more inter-disciplinary research on explainability.

A large number of cross-references to various bodies of text are used in legal texts, each serving a different purpose. It is often necessary for authorities and companies to look into certain types of these citations. Yet, there is a lack of automatic tools to aid in this process. Recently, citation graphs have been used to improve the intelligibility of complex rule frameworks. We propose an algorithm that builds the citation graph from a document and automatically labels each edge according (...) to its purpose. Our method uses the citing text only and thus works only on citations who’s purpose can be uniquely identified by their surrounding text. This framework is then applied to the US code. This paper includes defining and evaluating a standard gold set of labels that cover a vast majority of citation types which appear in the “US Code” but are still short enough for practical use. We also proposed a novel linear-chain conditional random field model that extracts the features required for labeling the citations from the surrounding text. We then analyzed the effectiveness of different clustering methods such as K-means and support vector machine to automatically label each citation with the corresponding label. Besides this, we talk about the practical difficulties of this task and give a comparison of human accuracy compared to our end-to-end algorithm. (shrink)