{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023066485753052916, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.857142857142857, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
CHRiSM and Probabilistic Argumentation Logic

Riveret et al. proposed a framework for probabilistic legal reasoning. Their goal is to determine the chance of winning a court case, given the chances of the judge accepting certain claims and legal rules. We tackle the same problem by defining and implementing a new formalism, called probabilistic argumentation logic (PAL). We implement PAL in CHRiSM, and discuss how it can be seen as a probabilistic generalization of Nute’s defeasible logic. Not only does this provide an automation of the — only hand-performed — computations in Riveret et al, it also provides a solution to one of their open problems: a method to determine the initial probabilities from a given body of precedents.