Building and Testing the SHYSTER-MYCIN Hybrid Legal Expert System

O’Callaghan, Thomas; Popple, James; McCreath, Eric

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1335658

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Legal reasoning and medicine seem to be popular application fields for the approaches integrating rules and cases. Examples of hybrid or integrated legal systems are CABARET (Rissland & Skalak, 1991), DANIEL (Bruninghaus, 1994), GREBE (Branting, 1991(Branting, , 2003, IKBALS III (Zeleznikow et al, 1994) and SHYSTER-MYCIN (O'Callaghan et al, 2003a, 2003b. Rules in hybrid or integrated legal systems are usually based on legislation, whereas cases are based on previously tried cases.…”

Section: Combining Rbr and Cbrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The coprocessing category seems to be sufficient for describing a number of approaches such as those of Branting (1991Branting ( , 2003, Rissland and Skalak (1991), Bichindaritz et al (1998), Montani et al (2000), Montani and Bellazzi (2002), Sabater et al (1998), O'Callaghan et al (2003a, 2003b and Jakobson et al (2004). However, coprocessing may entail not only cooperation but also 'competition' between the integrated components in producing the final result or assessment of their suitability in dealing with the case at hand (Dutta & Bonissone, 1993;Bruninghaus, 1994;Agre, 1995;Golding & Rosenbloom, 1996;Lee, 2002).…”

Section: Medsker's Categorization Schemementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Categorizing approaches combining rule‐based and case‐based reasoning

Prentzas¹,

Hatzilygeroudis²

2007

Expert Systems

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rule-based and case-based reasoning are two popular approaches used in intelligent systems. Rules usually represent general knowledge, whereas cases encompass knowledge accumulated from specific (specialized) situations. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, which are proved to be complementary to a large degree. So, it is well justified to combine rules and cases to produce effective hybrid approaches, surpassing the disadvantages of each component method. In this paper, we first present advantages and disadvantages of rule-based and case-based reasoning and show that they are complementary. We then discuss the deficiencies of existing categorization schemes for integrations of rule-based and case-based representations. To deal with these deficiencies, we introduce a new categorization scheme. Finally, we briefly present representative approaches for the final categories of our scheme.Keywords: hybrid intelligent systems, intelligent integrated systems, combination of rule-based and case-based reasoning, rule-based reasoning, case-based reasoning

show abstract

Section: Combining Rbr and Cbrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Medsker's Categorization Schemementioning

confidence: 99%

Categorizing approaches combining rule‐based and case‐based reasoning

Prentzas¹,

Hatzilygeroudis²

2007

Expert Systems

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Modeling juridical texts into logical formalism has been proposed in order to directly apply inference mechanisms to the context of the law (O'Callaghan et al, 2003). Several formalisms and resolution algorithms are available and well-tried, such as the first-order and backward-chaining architecture of Prolog, the modal or deontic logics (Eijlander, 1993).…”

Section: Data Splittingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Data Model for Knowledge Representation in Collaborative Systems

Tamisier¹,

Feltz²

2007

Data Sci. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 * Further information on the research described in this paper is available in [3] and [4], and at <http://cs.anu.edu.au/ software/shyster/tom/>. 1 The version of MYCIN used for SHYSTER-MYCIN is available at <http://www.norvig.com/paip.html>.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both SM-v2 and SM-v3 operate upon the same knowledge base, so they are identical for the purposes of evaluating correctness 4. When the test group was divided in its opinion, it was because of differences in fact classification, rather than application of the rules.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Shyster-Mycin

O’Callaghan

Popple

McCreath

2003

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law - ICAIL '03

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SHYSTER-MYCIN combines a case-based legal expert system (SHYSTER) with a rule-based expert system (MYCIN) to form a hybrid legal expert system. MYCIN's reporting has been improved for use with SHYSTER-MYCIN to provide more useful information about the system's conclusions.SHYSTER-MYCIN's output was tested against that of a group of lawyers, not expert in the test domain (Australian copyright law). This allowed the system's reasoning, rather than its depth of knowledge, to be tested. Testing indicates that SHYSTER-MYCIN's approach to the law-using a rule-based system to reason with legislation and a casebased system to reason with cases-is appropriate.

show abstract

Building and Testing the SHYSTER-MYCIN Hybrid Legal Expert System

Cited by 7 publications

References 21 publications

Categorizing approaches combining rule‐based and case‐based reasoning

Categorizing approaches combining rule‐based and case‐based reasoning

A Data Model for Knowledge Representation in Collaborative Systems

Shyster-Mycin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About