Organizations: Manipal University Jaipur, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 303007, India · Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) Kolkata, Mohanpur, 741246, India · The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata, 700098, India
In 2011, Judea Pearl received the Turing Award, considered the Nobel Prize in Computing, for fundamental contributions to artificial intelligence through the development of a calculus for probabilistic and causal reasoning. It includes pioneering the development of causal discovery algorithms. These computer algorithms can analyze large multivariate datasets and automatically discover the causal relationships among the constituent variables. They have been widely used in many critical fields such as medicine and economics to support decisions. However, to our knowledge, they have not been leveraged in law. This paper attempts to alleviate this gap by investigating whether causal discovery algorithms can be leveraged for automated generation of legal arguments. To that end, a novel legal dataset is prepared by identifying 17 legal concepts, such as physical assault and property dispute. A curated collection of 150 homicide cases are annotated with these concepts, e.g., a case is annotated with physical assault only if a physical assault had been reported in that case. Subsequently, a selected set of widely-used causal discovery algorithms is applied to the annotated dataset to discover the causal relationships between the legal concepts. Additionally, the degrees of belief associated with the discovered relationships are quantified in mathematical probabilities. It is shown that some of the causal relationships help generate viable legal arguments, e.g., if one could establish that a physical assault has not taken place during a homicide, it should be a sufficient condition (with probability 1) to establish that the homicide has not been committed due to a property-related dispute. Thus, this paper shows that causal discovery algorithms can be helpful in generating legal arguments, opening up avenues for promising future endeavors.
This paper presents a set-theoretic formalization of the classical usuli method of al-Sabr wa al-Taqsim (Examination and Division) for extracting legal causes ('ilal) within closed chapters of jurisprudence. A computational algorithm is introduced that extracts minimal operational rules from a truth table of juristic verdicts. The principal result is that, given a complete truth table for a closed chapter, the algorithm computes the minimal structural generators of the ruling and eliminates all logically redundant attributes. The resulting structures constitute admissible candidate causes for subsequent juristic evaluation. The framework is conditional upon the availability of a finite school-relative concept vocabulary and a complete ruling table for the chapter under investigation.
Constraint-based causal discovery is brittle in finite-sample regimes because erroneous conditional-independence (CI) decisions can cascade into substantial structural errors. We propose Quantitative Argumentation for Causal Discovery (QACD), a semantics-driven framework that represents CI outcomes as graded, defeasible arguments rather than irreversible constraints. QACD maps statistical test outcomes to argument strengths and aggregates conflicting evidence through connectivity-mediated witness propagation, producing a fixed-point acceptability labeling over candidate adjacencies. Experiments on standard benchmark Bayesian networks suggest that QACD improves structural coherence and interventional reliability in several noisy or inconsistent CI regimes, while remaining competitive with classical constraint-based, hybrid, and prior argumentation-based baselines.
Recent attempts to combine large language models (LLMs) with causal discovery ask models to infer pairwise directions, propose graph structures, or inject language-model outputs as priors and constraints. These approaches promise faster analysis, but they also obscure whether a causal evidence is supported by data and assumptions or by textual associations, prompt artifacts and hallucinated mechanisms. We argue for a different role for agents in causal discovery. Agents should inspect data, retrieve context, explain method assumptions and clarify graph outputs, but they should not supply edges, orientations, priors, constraints or causal conclusions. We propose the principle that agents assist the workflow, while causal claims remain grounded in data, explicit assumptions, formal algorithms, diagnostics and user or domain-expert decisions. We instantiate this principle in causal-learn+, an online platform that coordinates data analysis, preprocessing, method recommendation, expert-knowledge incorporation, formal discovery and interpretation around the algorithmic ecosystem of causal-learn. A case study on Big Five personality data illustrates agent-assisted pipeline of causal discovery without turning language-model unreliability into causal evidence. The platform is available at causallearn.com.