On semantics-based minimal revision for legal reasoning
On semantics-based minimal revision for legal reasoning
复制标题
基于语义的法律推理最小修正
DOI：
10.1145/3462757.3466075
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Satoh Ken
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fungwacharakorn Wachara;Tsushima Kanae;Satoh Ken
当对法规的字面解释导致违反直觉的后果时，法官，特别是在高等法院，可以确定违反直觉的后果，并修改对法规的解释。研究人员对计算法律代表的修订进行了研究。通常，关于修改的研究通常认为最低限度的修改反映了法官立法权的局限性。然而，这些研究倾向于最小化用于改变规则的操作的数量，而不是最小化语义(从程序获得的结论集)的变化，这在不同的情况下是不同的。在本文中，我们考虑最小化用普通逻辑程序编写的规则库的语义变化。我们认为，每个可能的事实基(案例的表示)都有它相应的语义和对应的主导规则基，它是从特定于所考虑的事实基的规则库的子集获得的Horn子句的集合。因此，我们提出了一种新的基于语义的最小修正子类型，称为基于外延的最小修正子类型。此外，我们还提出了一种通过使用合法调试和封闭世界规范来获得基于一次显式的最小修改的指南。我们还比较了理论距离度量中基于支配的最小修正量和基于句法的最小修正量。由于基于语法的最小修订最小化了用于改变规则的操作的数量，所以比较表明，与基于主导的最小修订相比，基于语法的最小修订可能导致额外的语义变化，特别是当规则库包含用于相同结果的多个规则时。我们讨论了这种额外的语义变化可以被认为是由基于句法的最小修改引起的无意变化。因此，法律推理系统可以与用户核对这种额外的语义变化，以确认用户的变化意图。
When literal interpretation of statutes leads to counterintuitive consequences, judges, especially in high courts, may identify counterintuitive consequences and revise interpretation of statutes. Researchers have studied revisions for computational legal representation. Generally, studies on revision usually considerminimalrevision to reflect limitation of judges' legislative power. However, those studies tend to minimize the number of operations used for changing rules rather than minimize the changes of semantics (the set of conclusions obtained from the program), which vary among cases. In this paper, we consider minimizing the changes of semantics of a rule-base written in a normal logic program. We consider that each possible fact-base (the representation of a case) has its corresponding semantics and correspondingdominantrule-base, which is a set of Horn clauses obtained from the subset of rule-base that is specific to the considered fact-base. Hence, we present a new sub type of semantics-based minimal revision called adominant-based minimal revision. Furthermore, we present one guidance to obtain onedominant-based minimal revision by using legal debugging and Closed World Specification. We also compare the dominant-based minimal revision with the syntax-based minimal revision in Theory Distance Metric. As the syntax-based minimal revision minimizes the number of operations used for changing rules, the comparison shows that the syntax-based minimal revision may cause extra semantics changes compared to the dominant-based minimal revision, especially when the rule-base contains multiple rules for the same consequence. We discuss that such extra semantics changes can be considered as unintentional changes caused by the syntax-based minimal revision. Hence, legal reasoning systems can check with the user such extra semantics changes to confirm the user intention of changes.