对具有冲突和补偿规范的一阶知识的合规性检查:当前可用技术之间的比较

IF 3.1 2区 社会学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Artificial Intelligence and Law Pub Date : 2023-06-02 DOI:10.1007/s10506-023-09360-z
Livio Robaldo, Sotiris Batsakis, Roberta Calegari, Francesco Calimeri, Megumi Fujita, Guido Governatori, Maria Concetta Morelli, Francesco Pacenza, Giuseppe Pisano, Ken Satoh, Ilias Tachmazidis, Jessica Zangari
{"title":"对具有冲突和补偿规范的一阶知识的合规性检查:当前可用技术之间的比较","authors":"Livio Robaldo,&nbsp;Sotiris Batsakis,&nbsp;Roberta Calegari,&nbsp;Francesco Calimeri,&nbsp;Megumi Fujita,&nbsp;Guido Governatori,&nbsp;Maria Concetta Morelli,&nbsp;Francesco Pacenza,&nbsp;Giuseppe Pisano,&nbsp;Ken Satoh,&nbsp;Ilias Tachmazidis,&nbsp;Jessica Zangari","doi":"10.1007/s10506-023-09360-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper analyses and compares some of the automated reasoners that have been used in recent research for compliance checking. Although the list of the considered reasoners is not exhaustive, we believe that our analysis is representative enough to take stock of the current state of the art in the topic. We are interested here in formalizations at the <i>first-order</i> level. Past literature on normative reasoning mostly focuses on the <i>propositional</i> level. However, the propositional level is of little usefulness for concrete LegalTech applications, in which compliance checking must be enforced on (large) sets of individuals. Furthermore, we are interested in technologies that are <i>freely available</i> and that can be further investigated and compared by the scientific community. In other words, this paper does not consider technologies only employed in industry and/or whose source code is non-accessible. This paper formalizes a selected use case in the considered reasoners and compares the implementations, also in terms of simulations with respect to shared synthetic datasets. The comparison will highlight that lot of further research still needs to be done to integrate the benefits featured by the different reasoners into a single standardized first-order framework, suitable for LegalTech applications. All source codes are freely available at https://github.com/liviorobaldo/compliancecheckers, together with instructions to locally reproduce the simulations.\n</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51336,"journal":{"name":"Artificial Intelligence and Law","volume":"32 2","pages":"505 - 555"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10506-023-09360-z.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Compliance checking on first-order knowledge with conflicting and compensatory norms: a comparison among currently available technologies\",\"authors\":\"Livio Robaldo,&nbsp;Sotiris Batsakis,&nbsp;Roberta Calegari,&nbsp;Francesco Calimeri,&nbsp;Megumi Fujita,&nbsp;Guido Governatori,&nbsp;Maria Concetta Morelli,&nbsp;Francesco Pacenza,&nbsp;Giuseppe Pisano,&nbsp;Ken Satoh,&nbsp;Ilias Tachmazidis,&nbsp;Jessica Zangari\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10506-023-09360-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This paper analyses and compares some of the automated reasoners that have been used in recent research for compliance checking. Although the list of the considered reasoners is not exhaustive, we believe that our analysis is representative enough to take stock of the current state of the art in the topic. We are interested here in formalizations at the <i>first-order</i> level. Past literature on normative reasoning mostly focuses on the <i>propositional</i> level. However, the propositional level is of little usefulness for concrete LegalTech applications, in which compliance checking must be enforced on (large) sets of individuals. Furthermore, we are interested in technologies that are <i>freely available</i> and that can be further investigated and compared by the scientific community. In other words, this paper does not consider technologies only employed in industry and/or whose source code is non-accessible. This paper formalizes a selected use case in the considered reasoners and compares the implementations, also in terms of simulations with respect to shared synthetic datasets. The comparison will highlight that lot of further research still needs to be done to integrate the benefits featured by the different reasoners into a single standardized first-order framework, suitable for LegalTech applications. All source codes are freely available at https://github.com/liviorobaldo/compliancecheckers, together with instructions to locally reproduce the simulations.\\n</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51336,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Artificial Intelligence and Law\",\"volume\":\"32 2\",\"pages\":\"505 - 555\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10506-023-09360-z.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Artificial Intelligence and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10506-023-09360-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Artificial Intelligence and Law","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10506-023-09360-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析并比较了近期研究中用于合规性检查的一些自动推理器。尽管我们所考虑的推理器并不详尽,但我们相信,我们的分析足以代表当前该领域的技术水平。在此,我们关注的是一阶层次的形式化。以往关于规范推理的文献大多集中在命题层面。然而,命题层面对于具体的法律技术应用来说用处不大,因为在这些应用中,必须对(大量)个人集合进行合规性检查。此外,我们感兴趣的技术都是免费提供的,科学界可以对其进行进一步研究和比较。换句话说,本文不考虑仅用于工业领域和/或源代码不可访问的技术。本文在所考虑的推理器中正式确定了一个选定的用例,并比较了这些推理器的实现,同时还对共享合成数据集进行了模拟。比较结果将突出表明,要将不同推理器的优势整合到一个适用于法律技术应用的标准化一阶框架中,仍有许多进一步的研究工作要做。所有源代码均可在 https://github.com/liviorobaldo/compliancecheckers 免费获取,并附有本地重现模拟的说明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Compliance checking on first-order knowledge with conflicting and compensatory norms: a comparison among currently available technologies

This paper analyses and compares some of the automated reasoners that have been used in recent research for compliance checking. Although the list of the considered reasoners is not exhaustive, we believe that our analysis is representative enough to take stock of the current state of the art in the topic. We are interested here in formalizations at the first-order level. Past literature on normative reasoning mostly focuses on the propositional level. However, the propositional level is of little usefulness for concrete LegalTech applications, in which compliance checking must be enforced on (large) sets of individuals. Furthermore, we are interested in technologies that are freely available and that can be further investigated and compared by the scientific community. In other words, this paper does not consider technologies only employed in industry and/or whose source code is non-accessible. This paper formalizes a selected use case in the considered reasoners and compares the implementations, also in terms of simulations with respect to shared synthetic datasets. The comparison will highlight that lot of further research still needs to be done to integrate the benefits featured by the different reasoners into a single standardized first-order framework, suitable for LegalTech applications. All source codes are freely available at https://github.com/liviorobaldo/compliancecheckers, together with instructions to locally reproduce the simulations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
26.80%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Artificial Intelligence and Law is an international forum for the dissemination of original interdisciplinary research in the following areas: Theoretical or empirical studies in artificial intelligence (AI), cognitive psychology, jurisprudence, linguistics, or philosophy which address the development of formal or computational models of legal knowledge, reasoning, and decision making. In-depth studies of innovative artificial intelligence systems that are being used in the legal domain. Studies which address the legal, ethical and social implications of the field of Artificial Intelligence and Law. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following: Computational models of legal reasoning and decision making; judgmental reasoning, adversarial reasoning, case-based reasoning, deontic reasoning, and normative reasoning. Formal representation of legal knowledge: deontic notions, normative modalities, rights, factors, values, rules. Jurisprudential theories of legal reasoning. Specialized logics for law. Psychological and linguistic studies concerning legal reasoning. Legal expert systems; statutory systems, legal practice systems, predictive systems, and normative systems. AI and law support for legislative drafting, judicial decision-making, and public administration. Intelligent processing of legal documents; conceptual retrieval of cases and statutes, automatic text understanding, intelligent document assembly systems, hypertext, and semantic markup of legal documents. Intelligent processing of legal information on the World Wide Web, legal ontologies, automated intelligent legal agents, electronic legal institutions, computational models of legal texts. Ramifications for AI and Law in e-Commerce, automatic contracting and negotiation, digital rights management, and automated dispute resolution. Ramifications for AI and Law in e-governance, e-government, e-Democracy, and knowledge-based systems supporting public services, public dialogue and mediation. Intelligent computer-assisted instructional systems in law or ethics. Evaluation and auditing techniques for legal AI systems. Systemic problems in the construction and delivery of legal AI systems. Impact of AI on the law and legal institutions. Ethical issues concerning legal AI systems. In addition to original research contributions, the Journal will include a Book Review section, a series of Technology Reports describing existing and emerging products, applications and technologies, and a Research Notes section of occasional essays posing interesting and timely research challenges for the field of Artificial Intelligence and Law. Financial support for the Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law is provided by the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
期刊最新文献
DiscoLQA: zero-shot discourse-based legal question answering on European Legislation A neural network to identify requests, decisions, and arguments in court rulings on custody Cytomorphological traits of fine-needle aspirates of hyalinizing trabecular tumor of the thyroid gland: A brief report. Automating petition classification in Brazil’s legal system: a two-step deep learning approach Reasoning with inconsistent precedents
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1