{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,25]],"date-time":"2026-03-25T09:08:37Z","timestamp":1774429717645,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":27,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2024,12,12]],"date-time":"2024-12-12T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1733961600000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2024,12,12]],"date-time":"2024-12-12T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1733961600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Artif Intell Law"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,3]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    We define and study the notions of stability and relevance for precedent-based reasoning, focusing on Horty\u2019s result model of precedential constraint. According to this model, precedents constrain the possible outcomes for a focus case, which is a yet undecided case, where precedents and the focus case are compared on their characteristics (called dimensions). In this paper, we refer to the enforced outcome for the focus case as its\n                    <jats:italic>justification<\/jats:italic>\n                    status. In contrast to earlier work, we do not assume that all dimension values of the focus case or the precedent cases have been established with certainty: rather, each dimension is assigned a set of possible values. We define a focus case as\n                    <jats:italic>stable<\/jats:italic>\n                    if its justification status is the same for every choice of the possible values. For focus cases that are not stable, we study the task of identifying\n                    <jats:italic>relevance<\/jats:italic>\n                    : which possible values should be excluded to make the focus case stable? In addition, we introduce the notion of\n                    <jats:italic>possibility<\/jats:italic>\n                    to verify if a user can assign an outcome to an unstable focus case without making the case base of precedents inconsistent. We show how the tasks of identifying justification, stability, relevance and possibility can be applied for human-in-the-loop decision support. Finally, we discuss the computational complexity of these tasks and provide efficient algorithms.\n                  <\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1007\/s10506-024-09421-x","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2024,12,12]],"date-time":"2024-12-12T05:00:45Z","timestamp":1733979645000},"page":"107-152","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":2,"title":["Precedent-based reasoning with incomplete information for human-in-the-loop decision support"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"34","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-0285-0706","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Daphne","family":"Odekerken","sequence":"first","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Floris","family":"Bex","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Henry","family":"Prakken","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,12,12]]},"reference":[{"key":"9421_CR1","unstructured":"Aleven V (1997) Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh"},{"issue":"6","key":"9421_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"753","DOI":"10.1016\/0020-7373(91)90011-U","volume":"34","author":"K Ashley","year":"1991","unstructured":"Ashley K (1991) Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. Int J Man Mach Stud 34(6):753\u2013796. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/0020-7373(91)90011-U","journal-title":"Int J Man Mach Stud"},{"issue":"2","key":"9421_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"125","DOI":"10.1007\/s10506-009-9077-9","volume":"17","author":"K Ashley","year":"2009","unstructured":"Ashley K, Br\u00fcninghaus S (2009) Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artif Intell Law 17(2):125\u2013165. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10506-009-9077-9","journal-title":"Artif Intell Law"},{"key":"9421_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"70","DOI":"10.1109\/64.21892","volume":"3","author":"K Ashley","year":"1988","unstructured":"Ashley K, Rissland E (1988) A case-based approach to modeling legal expertise. IEEE Intell Syst 3:70\u201377. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1109\/64.21892","journal-title":"IEEE Intell Syst"},{"issue":"2","key":"9421_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"205","DOI":"10.1007\/s10506-017-9201-1","volume":"25","author":"T Bench-Capon","year":"2017","unstructured":"Bench-Capon T (2017) HYPO\u2019s legacy: introduction to the virtual special issue. Artif Intell Law 25(2):205\u2013250. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10506-017-9201-1","journal-title":"Artif Intell Law"},{"key":"9421_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K (2022) Argument schemes for factor ascription. In: Computational models of argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2022. IOS Press, pp 68\u201379. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3233\/FAIA220142","DOI":"10.3233\/FAIA220142"},{"key":"9421_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s10506-023-09382-7","author":"I Canavotto","year":"2023","unstructured":"Canavotto I (2023) Reasoning with inconsistent precedents. Artif Intell Law. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10506-023-09382-7","journal-title":"Artif Intell Law"},{"key":"9421_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Governatori G, Olivieri F, Rotolo A, et\u00a0al (2022) Stable normative explanations. In: Legal knowledge and information systems. Proceedings of JURIX 2022. IOS Press, p 43\u201352. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3233\/FAIA220447","DOI":"10.3233\/FAIA220447"},{"issue":"1","key":"9421_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"19","DOI":"10.1017\/s1352325204000151","volume":"10","author":"J Horty","year":"2004","unstructured":"Horty J (2004) The result model of precedent. Leg Theory 10(1):19\u201331. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/s1352325204000151","journal-title":"Leg Theory"},{"key":"9421_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1017\/s1352325211000036","volume":"17","author":"J Horty","year":"2011","unstructured":"Horty J (2011) Rules and reasons in the theory of precedent. Leg Theory 17:1\u201333. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/s1352325211000036","journal-title":"Leg Theory"},{"issue":"3","key":"9421_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"309","DOI":"10.1007\/s10506-019-09245-0","volume":"27","author":"J Horty","year":"2019","unstructured":"Horty J (2019) Reasoning with dimensions and magnitudes. Artif Intell Law 27(3):309\u2013345. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10506-019-09245-0","journal-title":"Artif Intell Law"},{"key":"9421_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"271","DOI":"10.1007\/s10506-020-09275-z","volume":"29","author":"J Horty","year":"2021","unstructured":"Horty J (2021) Modifying the reason model. Artif Intell Law 29:271\u2013285. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10506-020-09275-z","journal-title":"Artif Intell Law"},{"issue":"4","key":"9421_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"703","DOI":"10.1007\/s10506-022-09335-6","volume":"31","author":"R Mullins","year":"2023","unstructured":"Mullins R (2023) Two factor-based models of precedential constraint: a comparison and proposal. Artif Intell Law 31(4):703\u2013738. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10506-022-09335-6","journal-title":"Artif Intell Law"},{"key":"9421_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Odekerken D, Bex F (2020) Towards transparent human-in-the-loop classification of fraudulent web shops. In: Legal knowledge and information systems. Proceedings of JURIX 2020. IOS Press, pp 239\u2013242. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3233\/FAIA200873","DOI":"10.3233\/FAIA200873"},{"key":"9421_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.iswa.2022.200110","author":"D Odekerken","year":"2022","unstructured":"Odekerken D, Bex F, Borg A et al (2022) Approximating stability for applied argument-based inquiry. Intell Syst Appl. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.iswa.2022.200110","journal-title":"Intell Syst Appl"},{"key":"9421_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Odekerken D, Bex F, Prakken H (2023a) Justification, stability and relevance for case-based reasoning with incomplete focus cases. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, pp 177\u2013186. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/3594536.3595136","DOI":"10.1145\/3594536.3595136"},{"key":"9421_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Odekerken D, Bex F, Prakken H (2023b) Precedent-based reasoning with incomplete cases. In: Legal knowledge and information systems. Proceedings of JURIX 2023. IOS Press, pp 33\u201342. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3233\/FAIA230943","DOI":"10.3233\/FAIA230943"},{"key":"9421_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3233\/aac-230002","author":"D Odekerken","year":"2023","unstructured":"Odekerken D, Borg A, Bex F (2023c) Justification, stability and relevance in incomplete argumentation frameworks. Argum Comput. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3233\/aac-230002","journal-title":"Argum Comput"},{"key":"9421_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Odekerken D, Lehtonen T, Borg A, et\u00a0al (2023d) Argumentative reasoning in ASPIC+ under incomplete information. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning. IJCAI, pp 531\u2013541. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.24963\/kr.2023\/52","DOI":"10.24963\/kr.2023\/52"},{"key":"9421_CR20","unstructured":"Peters J, Bex F, Prakken H (2022) Justifications derived from inconsistent case bases using authoritativeness. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on argumentation for eXplainable AI, pp 1\u201313. https:\/\/ceur-ws.org\/Vol-3209\/2855.pdf"},{"issue":"4","key":"9421_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"559","DOI":"10.1007\/s10506-021-09284-6","volume":"29","author":"H Prakken","year":"2021","unstructured":"Prakken H (2021) A formal analysis of some factor-and precedent-based accounts of precedential constraint. Artif Intell Law 29(4):559\u2013585. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10506-021-09284-6","journal-title":"Artif Intell Law"},{"issue":"2","key":"9421_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"159","DOI":"10.3233\/aac-210009","volume":"13","author":"H Prakken","year":"2022","unstructured":"Prakken H, Ratsma R (2022) A top-level model of case-based argumentation for explanation: formalisation and experiments. Argum Comput 13(2):159\u2013194. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3233\/aac-210009","journal-title":"Argum Comput"},{"key":"9421_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"231","DOI":"10.1007\/978-94-015-9010-5_5","volume":"6","author":"H Prakken","year":"1998","unstructured":"Prakken H, Sartor G (1998) Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artif Intell Law 6:231\u2013287. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-94-015-9010-5_5","journal-title":"Artif Intell Law"},{"key":"9421_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1007\/s10506-017-9216-7","volume":"26","author":"A Rigoni","year":"2018","unstructured":"Rigoni A (2018) Representing dimensions within the reason model of precedent. Artif Intell Law 26:1\u201322. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10506-017-9216-7","journal-title":"Artif Intell Law"},{"key":"9421_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s10506-023-09384-5","author":"A Rigoni","year":"2024","unstructured":"Rigoni A (2024) Toward representing interpretation in factor-based models of precedent. Artif Intell Law. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10506-023-09384-5","journal-title":"Artif Intell Law"},{"key":"9421_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Rissland E, Ashley K (1987) A case-based system for trade secrets law. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, pp 60\u201366. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/41735.41743","DOI":"10.1145\/41735.41743"},{"issue":"12","key":"9421_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"10772","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eswa.2012.02.188","volume":"39","author":"T Zurek","year":"2012","unstructured":"Zurek T (2012) Modelling of a\u2019fortiori reasoning. Expert Syst Appl 39(12):10772\u201310779. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.eswa.2012.02.188","journal-title":"Expert Syst Appl"}],"container-title":["Artificial Intelligence and Law"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s10506-024-09421-x.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s10506-024-09421-x","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s10506-024-09421-x.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,25]],"date-time":"2026-03-25T06:45:04Z","timestamp":1774421104000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s10506-024-09421-x"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2024,12,12]]},"references-count":27,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,3]]}},"alternative-id":["9421"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10506-024-09421-x","relation":{},"ISSN":["0924-8463","1572-8382"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0924-8463","type":"print"},{"value":"1572-8382","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2024,12,12]]},"assertion":[{"value":"3 September 2024","order":1,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"12 December 2024","order":2,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}}]}}