Trevor Bench-Capon, Katie Atkinson
We present argumentation schemes to model reasoning with legal cases. We provide schemes for each of the three stages that take place after the facts are established: factor ascription, issue resolution and outcome determination. The schemes are illustrated with examples from a specific legal domain, US Trade Secrets law, and the wider applicability of these schemes is discussed.
Jordan Robinson, Angus R. Williams, Katie Atkinson et al.
Real-world knowledge representation often requires capturing subjective, continuous attributes -- such as political positions -- that conflict with pairwise validation, the widely accepted gold standard for human evaluation. We address this challenge through a dual-scale validation framework applied to political stance prediction in argumentative discourse, combining pointwise and pairwise human annotation. Using 22 language models, we construct a large-scale knowledge base of political position predictions for 23,228 arguments drawn from 30 debates that appeared on the UK politicial television programme \textit{Question Time}. Pointwise evaluation shows moderate human-model agreement (Krippendorff's $α=0.578$), reflecting intrinsic subjectivity, while pairwise validation reveals substantially stronger alignment between human- and model-derived rankings ($α=0.86$ for the best model). This work contributes: (i) a practical validation methodology for subjective continuous knowledge that balances scalability with reliability; (ii) a validated structured argumentation knowledge base enabling graph-based reasoning and retrieval-augmented generation in political domains; and (iii) evidence that ordinal structure can be extracted from pointwise language models predictions from inherently subjective real-world discourse, advancing knowledge representation capabilities for domains where traditional symbolic or categorical approaches are insufficient.
T. Y. S. S Santosh, Kevin D. Ashley, Katie Atkinson et al.
Modeling legal reasoning and argumentation justifying decisions in cases has always been central to AI & Law, yet contemporary developments in legal NLP have increasingly focused on statistically classifying legal conclusions from text. While conceptually simpler, these approaches often fall short in providing usable justifications connecting to appropriate legal concepts. This paper reviews both traditional symbolic works in AI & Law and recent advances in legal NLP, and distills possibilities of integrating expert-informed knowledge to strike a balance between scalability and explanation in symbolic vs. data-driven approaches. We identify open challenges and discuss the potential of modern NLP models and methods that integrate
Angrosh Mandya, Danushka Bollegala, Frans Coenen et al.
We propose in this paper a combined model of Long Short Term Memory and Convolutional Neural Networks (LSTM-CNN) that exploits word embeddings and positional embeddings for cross-sentence n-ary relation extraction. The proposed model brings together the properties of both LSTMs and CNNs, to simultaneously exploit long-range sequential information and capture most informative features, essential for cross-sentence n-ary relation extraction. The LSTM-CNN model is evaluated on standard dataset on cross-sentence n-ary relation extraction, where it significantly outperforms baselines such as CNNs, LSTMs and also a combined CNN-LSTM model. The paper also shows that the LSTM-CNN model outperforms the current state-of-the-art methods on cross-sentence n-ary relation extraction.