CABARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture

HYPO’S legacy: introduction to the virtual special issue

“…CABARET was described in conference papers, including Rissland and Skalak (1989b), Rissland and Skalak (1989a) and Skalak and Rissland (1991), before being consolidated in Rissland and Skalak (1991) and Skalak and Rissland (1992) (the very first paper to appear in this journal), which focussed in particular on strategies and argument moves. Because it took as its domain Home Office Deduction, there was a basis for the law in statutes, whereas HYPO had started from case law and its consolidation in the Restatement of Torts.…”

“…Thus in CABARET (Skalak and Rissland 1992) we can see rules used to provide a top level structure in which CBR can be deployed, with an agenda mechanism to control the processing of two co-equal CBR and RBR reasoners. CABARET used observations and control rules to post and order tasks on the agenda: control in CABARET is best discussed in Rissland and Skalak (1991). Within the rule-based approaches, a requirement for cases to provide sufficient conditions to enable interpretation of the terms of legislation was recognised in the work of proponents of rule based systems such as Bench-Capon (1991).…”

Combinations of case-based reasoning with other intelligent methods

“…Such systems can be discerned into two types: cooperation-oriented, which give emphasis on cooperation, and reconciliation-oriented, which give emphasis on reconciliation. In the former type, the combined components cooperate with each other (usually by interleaving their reasoning steps) [27], [32]. In the latter, each component produces its own conclusion, possibly differing from the conclusion of the other component, and thus a reconciliation process is necessary [14].…”

Retrieval, reuse, revision and retention in case-based reasoning

“…As noted by Leake (1996b), "... the results of CBR systems are based on actual prior cases that can be presented to the user to provide compelling support for the system's conclusions". Such explanations are known as precedent-based explanations and have long been a feature of case-based models of legal argumentation (e.g., Ashley, 1991;Branting, 1991;Rissland & Skalak, 1991). An empirical study by Cunningham et al (2003) has shown that they are often more compelling than alternative forms of explanation.…”