1 / 20

From Structural Description to Interactions in Law : the Case for Simplicial Complexes

From Structural Description to Interactions in Law : the Case for Simplicial Complexes. Jacky Legrand Université Paris 2, CERSA. Introduction problem statement. Several communities focuses on networks Networks studied via graph theory  higher dimensional networks

orien
Download Presentation

From Structural Description to Interactions in Law : the Case for Simplicial Complexes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. From Structural Description to Interactions in Law :the Case for Simplicial Complexes Jacky Legrand Université Paris 2, CERSA

  2. Introductionproblem statement • Several communities focuses on networks • Networks studied via graph theory •  higher dimensional networks • Applications leave out the legal systems Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  3. Introductionobjectives • Generalising to relations among N things • Developments concerning Law Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  4. Introductionmethod • Syntactic & semantic perspectives • 1st level of interpretation • topology  Q-analysis* • maths  methodology to explicitate • 2nd level of interpretation • Q-analysis*  applications typology * Ronald Atkin 70's 40 years of applications Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  5. Introductionoutline • Graph • the vertices stand for things • the edges stand for binary relations • Hypergraph • the edges no longer connect pairs • the edges enclose subsets of vertices • Simplicial complex • multi-dimensional polygonal shapes Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  6. Simplicial complex Vertices (bi) Simplices (aj) Dimension (a4, 2) Faces (a1,<b2,b4>) Nearness (a1 a2 ,b4) Connectivity (a1,a2,a5,a6,a4) Loops (a4,a5,a6) Holes <b6,b7,b8> Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  7. 1st level of interpretation • Simplicial complex construction • vertices  simplices • Choice of invariants • algebraic • topological • combinatorial • Quantitative measures • Qualitative observations Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  8. 2nd level of interpretation • Applications of Q-analysis • Domain-oriented typology • down to earth • a relational world • artefacts, abstractions and concepts • Item-oriented typology • significance of simplices in complex ? • polyhedra as reified objects ? Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  9. Multidimensional networks in legal system • Statute Law • to measure and model substantive complexity • Boulet Bourcier Mazzega (11th & 12th ICAIL) • legal analysis via graph theory • Common Law • argumentation frameworks • computational model of legal inference • case-based reasoning Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  10. Multidimensional networks in legal systemStatute Law • Networking of the French legal Codes • legal analysis via graph theory • vertices of the graph are articles of law • the edges stand for quotations • X cites Y (X, Y tied vertices) • Extension to a multidimensional network 1 – method for complex construction • simplices = neighbour of X (or Y) • simplices = cliques* of graph * subset of X, Y such every pair connected 2 – to use Q-analysis (for one result) Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  11. Multidimensional networks in legal systemStatute Law • Connectivity extends "degree" • to which extent neighbours of X are connected together • q for each dimension of faces sharing • Q-structure vector • number of connected components • at each q‑level • large values = globally fragmented structure • New or generalised measures (degree, closeness, betweenness, eccentricity) Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  12. Multidimensional networks in legal systemStatute Law • Apart from quantitative techniques • To generalise the notion of nearness • stars and hubs • A new meaning for connectivity • holes = shomotopic objects (discrete homotopy) • The backcloth-traffic paradigm • structural description and dynamics • the backcloth "influences" activity • the backcloth "allows" and "forbids" Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  13. Multidimensional networks in legal systemStatute Law • Two-mode data network • a bipartite graph is two layered • an edge connects only vertices in different sets • Q-analysis is mainly devoted to 2‑mode data • Legal complexity modelling offer 2-mode networks • a Code cites a Code = one-mode data network • partitioning the corpus introduces 2-mode data • links between legal texts and jurisprudential texts Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  14. Multidimensional networks in legal systemStatute Law • From simplicial complexes to ontologies • Hypernetworks (J. Johnson 2000's) • Simplicial family • "assembly relation" and "cones" • to map vertices to a higher structured set • Iterating the process • to create simplices at a higher level • Multilevel lattice hierarchy • sharing faces in the cones allows Q‑analysis Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  15. Multidimensional networks in legal systemCommon Law • Judicial process based on the analysis of the previous cases versus deductive : facts+context  "legal text" • Case and precedents = arguments • Theories to explain cases • Argumentation frameworks • Recurrent worry for computational models • Intense research efforts in AI & Law Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  16. Multidimensional networks in legal systemCommon Law • Inventory of well known issues (25 years) • VAFS , CATO , CABARET , GREBE , HYPO • To extract the different concepts  • Unique framework • to produce arguments • to answer, and defeat, the opposite side • interactive production of competing arguments • strategy from one point of view in order to win Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  17. Multidimensional networks in legal systemCommon Law • Outcomes (decision) • Arguments (used to win) • Moves (to proceed from argument to argument) • Factors or Dimensions (organisation and abstraction of facts) • Issues ({factors} "warrants" outcome) • Values (social value the factors promote) (ordered with a preference relation) Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  18. Multidimensional networks in legal systemCommon Law • Two ideas emerge from these investigations  • "sharing" – connectivity (the sharing of factors among the cases) • "trajectory" – adaptative paths (the moves resulting from strategy) • The "factors" as "keystone of backcloth" • the structure of cases "explains" dynamics Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  19. Conclusion and discussion • Several caveats • lack of computer software applications • lack of independent validating yardstick • a naive feeling for Q‑analysis may be prejudicial • the narrow gap between metaphor and woolliness • Many benefits • connectivity is not similarity, covariance or correlation • graph theory and Q‑analysis can gain from the other • the "backcloth" as a suggestive metaphor • the use of graphics as a language • a powerful thinking tool Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

  20. Future work • Toward multidimensional networks in legal system • applications should be time, funds & corpus consuming • backcloth metaphor for questioning the "legal fabric" • Hypernetworks (J. Johnson) • answer to systemic limitations • answer to theory of sets limitations • further research deserves our attention Atelier Complexité et Politiques Publiques

More Related