Exploiting Contrastive Learning and Numerical Evidence for Confusing Legal Judgment Prediction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.08238v3
• Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2023 13:45:08 GMT
• Title: Exploiting Contrastive Learning and Numerical Evidence for Confusing Legal Judgment Prediction
• Authors: Leilei Gan, Baokui Li, Kun Kuang, Yating Zhang, Lei Wang, Luu Anh Tuan, Yi Yang, Fei Wu
• Abstract summary: Given the fact description text of a legal case, legal judgment prediction aims to predict the case's charge, law article and penalty term. Previous studies fail to distinguish different classification errors with a standard cross-entropy classification loss. We propose a moco-based supervised contrastive learning to learn distinguishable representations. We further enhance the representation of the fact description with extracted crime amounts which are encoded by a pre-trained numeracy model.
• Score: 46.71918729837462
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Given the fact description text of a legal case, legal judgment prediction (LJP) aims to predict the case's charge, law article and penalty term. A core problem of LJP is how to distinguish confusing legal cases, where only subtle text differences exist. Previous studies fail to distinguish different classification errors with a standard cross-entropy classification loss, and ignore the numbers in the fact description for predicting the term of penalty. To tackle these issues, in this work, first, we propose a moco-based supervised contrastive learning to learn distinguishable representations, and explore the best strategy to construct positive example pairs to benefit all three subtasks of LJP simultaneously. Second, in order to exploit the numbers in legal cases for predicting the penalty terms of certain cases, we further enhance the representation of the fact description with extracted crime amounts which are encoded by a pre-trained numeracy model. Extensive experiments on public benchmarks show that the proposed method achieves new state-of-the-art results, especially on confusing legal cases. Ablation studies also demonstrate the effectiveness of each component.

Related papers

• Distinguish Confusion in Legal Judgment Prediction via Revised Relation Knowledge [38.58529647679356]
  Legal Judgment Prediction aims to automatically predict a law case's judgment results based on the text description of its facts. The confusing law articles (or charges) problem frequently occurs, reflecting that the law cases applicable to similar articles (or charges) tend to be misjudged. This paper proposes an end-to-end model named textitD-LADAN to solve the above challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-18T09:44:59Z)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• Multi-Defendant Legal Judgment Prediction via Hierarchical Reasoning [49.23103067844278]
  We propose the task of multi-defendant LJP, which aims to automatically predict the judgment results for each defendant of multi-defendant cases. Two challenges arise with the task of multi-defendant LJP: (1) indistinguishable judgment results among various defendants; and (2) the lack of a real-world dataset for training and evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-10T04:46:30Z)
• MUSER: A Multi-View Similar Case Retrieval Dataset [65.36779942237357]
  Similar case retrieval (SCR) is a representative legal AI application that plays a pivotal role in promoting judicial fairness. Existing SCR datasets only focus on the fact description section when judging the similarity between cases. We present M, a similar case retrieval dataset based on multi-view similarity measurement and comprehensive legal element with sentence-level legal element annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T08:17:11Z)
• Precedent-Enhanced Legal Judgment Prediction with LLM and Domain-Model Collaboration [52.57055162778548]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) has become an increasingly crucial task in Legal AI. Precedents are the previous legal cases with similar facts, which are the basis for the judgment of the subsequent case in national legal systems. Recent advances in deep learning have enabled a variety of techniques to be used to solve the LJP task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T16:47:20Z)
• Leveraging task dependency and contrastive learning for Legal Judgement Prediction on the European Court of Human Rights [1.252149409594807]
  We report on an experiment in legal judgement prediction on European Court of Human Rights cases. Our models produce a small but consistent improvement in prediction performance over single-task and joint models without contrastive loss.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-01T21:38:47Z)
• Sequential Multi-task Learning with Task Dependency for Appeal Judgment Prediction [28.505366852202794]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) aims to automatically predict judgment results, such as charges, relevant law articles, and the term of penalty. This paper concerns a worthwhile but not well-studied LJP task, Appeal judgment Prediction (AJP), which predicts the judgment of an appellate court on an appeal case. We propose a Sequential Multi-task Learning Framework with Task Dependency for Appeal Judgement Prediction (SMAJudge) to address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-09T08:51:13Z)
• Equality before the Law: Legal Judgment Consistency Analysis for Fairness [55.91612739713396]
  In this paper, we propose an evaluation metric for judgment inconsistency, Legal Inconsistency Coefficient (LInCo) We simulate judges from different groups with legal judgment prediction (LJP) models and measure the judicial inconsistency with the disagreement of the judgment results given by LJP models trained on different groups. We employ LInCo to explore the inconsistency in real cases and come to the following observations: (1) Both regional and gender inconsistency exist in the legal system, but gender inconsistency is much less than regional inconsistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-25T14:28:00Z)
• Distinguish Confusing Law Articles for Legal Judgment Prediction [30.083642130015317]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is the task of automatically predicting a law case's judgment results given a text describing its facts. We present an end-to-end model, LADAN, to solve the task of LJP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-06T11:09:44Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.