{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02247191011235955, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001728608470181504, 'mean_word_length': 5.094736842105263, '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}}
Precedent Comparison in the Precedent Model Formalism: Theory and Application to Legal Cases

Comparison between precedents and case facts is a core issue in case-based reasoning, which has been discussed in a lot of research. In this paper, we use a recently developed precedent model formalism to discuss precedent comparison in case-based reasoning. With this formalism and a case study in a real legal domain, we show a new generalization and a new refinement of precedent comparison with respect to case-based reasoning approaches based on factors, such as HYPO and CATO. 1) Generalization: precedents and case facts can now be compared with general propositional formulas, and not only with factors. 2) Refinement: a distinction can be made between current analogies and distinctions in precedent models, and so-called relevances, i.e., unshared formulas between two precedents that are relevant for possible additional analogies and distinctions that can arise in a discussion. With these contributions the role of factors in case-based reasoning can be refined and compound formulas based on factors can be taken into account in casebased reasoning.