Philosophy of history, theory of history, and historical theory are three existing labels that are sometimes, but not always, treated as synonyms.1 Each of these has been used by both historians and philosophers to define a specific field of inquiry, which entailed its own approaches, methods, concepts, and problems, as well as specific venues and audiences, though these often overlap each other. As such, it is difficult to state clearly which label has been used by which community for what ends.

Specular reflections and refractive distortions are complex image properties of solid transparent objects, but despite this complexity, we readily perceive the 3D shapes of these objects. We have found in past work that relevant sources of scene complexity have differential effects on 3D shape perception, with specular reflections increasing perceived thickness, and refractive distortions decreasing perceived thickness. In an object with both elements, such as glass, the two optical properties may complement each other to support reliable perception of 3D shape. (...) We investigated the relative dominance of specular reflection and refractive distortions in the perception of shape. Surprisingly, the ratio of specular reflection to refractive component was almost equal to that of ordinary glass and ice, which promote correct percepts of 3D shape. The results were also explained by the variance in local RMS contrast in stimulus images but may depend on overall luminance and contrast of the surrounding light field. (shrink)

This paper presents the first dataset for Japanese Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP), the Japanese Tort-case Dataset (JTD), which features two tasks: tort prediction and its rationale extraction. The rationale extraction task identifies the court’s accepting arguments from alleged arguments by plaintiffs and defendants, which is a novel task in the field. JTD is constructed based on annotated 3477 Japanese Civil Code judgments by 41 legal experts, resulting in 7978 instances with 59,697 of their alleged arguments from the involved parties. Our (...) baseline experiments show the feasibility of the proposed two tasks, and our error analysis by legal experts identifies sources of errors and suggests future directions of the LJP research. (shrink)