Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts

ABSTRACT

This paper provides the results of experiments on the detection of arguments in texts among which are legal texts. The detection is seen as a classification problem. A classifier is trained on a set of annotated arguments. Different feature sets are evaluated involving lexical, syntactic, semantic and discourse properties of the texts. The experiments are a first step in the context of automatically classifying arguments in legal texts according to their rhetorical type and their visualization for convenient access and search.

REFERENCES

• 1: James Allen, Natural language understanding (2nd ed.), Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, 1995
• 2: Kevin D. Ashley, Modeling Legal Arguments: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991
• 3: T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Argument in artificial intelligence and law. Artif. Intell. Law, 5(4):249--261, 1997.
• 4: Adam L. Berger , Vincent J. Della Pietra , Stephen A. Della Pietra, A maximum entropy approach to natural language processing, Computational Linguistics, v.22 n.1, p.39-71, March 1996
• 5: K. Branting. Reasoning with Rules and Precedents: a Computational Model of Legal Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht; Boston, 2000.
• 6: Stefanie Brüninghaus , Kevin D. Ashley, Generating legal arguments and predictions from case texts, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 06-11, 2005, Bologna, Italy [doi>10.1145/1165485.1165497]
• 7: Eugene Charniak, A Maximum-Entropy-Inspired Parser, Brown University, Providence, RI, 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: Ben Hachey , Claire Grover, Automatic legal text summarisation: experiments with summary structuring, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 06-11, 2005, Bologna, Italy [doi>10.1145/1165485.1165498]
• 12: Helmut Horacek , Magdalena Wolska, Interpreting semi-formal utterances in dialogs about mathematical proofs, Data & Knowledge Engineering, v.58 n.1, p.90-106, July 2006 [doi>10.1016/j.datak.2005.05.010]
• 13: Eduard H. Hovy, Automated discourse generation using discourse structure relations, Artificial Intelligence, v.63 n.1-2, p.341-385, Oct. 1993 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(93)90021-3]
• 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: Daniel Marcu, The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization, MIT Press, 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: Henry Prakken , Chris Reed , Douglas Walton, Argumentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence, Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 24-28, 2003, Scotland, United Kingdom [doi>10.1145/1047788.1047794]
• 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. T M C 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: Terry Winograd, Understanding Natural Language, Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL, 1972
• 30: F. Wolf and E. Gibson. Coherence in Natural Language. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 2006.

INDEX TERMS

Keywords:
argument recognition, discourse analysis, information extraction, machine learning