回应对判例约束模型的批评，证明其在特定情况下仍有效。
Defending the Hierarchical Result Models of Precedential Constraint
- 区分中间因素为维度，改进原模型解释力
- 针对批评案例，证明模型可避免错误结果
- 适合法律推理与人工智能交叉研究者
近年来，基于判例的层级推理模型被提出用于处理判例约束问题。特雷弗·班克斯-卡邦在多篇论文中批评这些模型，指出其在某些情况下会给出错误结论，尤其当不同基础因素对中间因素的影响强度不同时。本文针对范沃克姆的结果导向型层级模型进行回应，认为班克斯-卡邦在部分例子中将中间因素误作维度理解。通过应用范沃克姆的基于维度的层级模型版本，可有效规避上述批评，保持模型一致性与合理性。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
In recent years, hierarchical case-based-reasoning models of precedential constraint have been proposed. In various papers, Trevor Bench-Capon criticised these models on the grounds that they would give incorrect outcomes in some cases. In particular, the models would not account for the possibility that intermediate factors are established with different strengths by different base-level factors. In this paper we respond to these criticisms for van Woerkom's result-based hierarchical models. We argue that in some examples Bench-Capon seems to interpret intermediate factors as dimensions, and that applying van Woerkom's dimension-based version of the hierarchical result model to these examples avoids Bench-Capon's criticisms.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。