Fact-based Court Judgment Prediction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.13350v1
• Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 12:39:28 GMT
• Title: Fact-based Court Judgment Prediction
• Authors: Shubham Kumar Nigam and Aniket Deroy
• Abstract summary: This extended abstract focuses on fact-based judgment prediction within the context of Indian legal documents. We introduce two distinct problem variations: one based solely on facts, and another combining facts with rulings from lower courts (RLC) Our research aims to enhance early-phase case outcome prediction, offering significant benefits to legal professionals and the general public.
• Score: 0.5439020425819
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: This extended abstract extends the research presented in "ILDC for CJPE: Indian Legal Documents Corpus for Court Judgment Prediction and Explanation" \cite{malik-etal-2021-ildc}, focusing on fact-based judgment prediction within the context of Indian legal documents. We introduce two distinct problem variations: one based solely on facts, and another combining facts with rulings from lower courts (RLC). Our research aims to enhance early-phase case outcome prediction, offering significant benefits to legal professionals and the general public. The results, however, indicated a performance decline compared to the original ILDC for CJPE study, even after implementing various weightage schemes in our DELSumm algorithm. Additionally, using only facts for legal judgment prediction with different transformer models yielded results inferior to the state-of-the-art outcomes reported in the "ILDC for CJPE" study.

Related papers

• Enabling Discriminative Reasoning in LLMs for Legal Judgment Prediction [23.046342240176575]
  We introduce the Ask-Discriminate-Predict (ADAPT) reasoning framework inspired by human reasoning. ADAPT involves decomposing case facts, discriminating among potential charges, and predicting the final judgment. Experiments conducted on two widely-used datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our framework in legal judgment prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T05:43:15Z)
• 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)
• PILOT: Legal Case Outcome Prediction with Case Law [43.680862577060765]
  We identify two unique challenges in making legal case outcome predictions with case law. First, it is crucial to identify relevant precedent cases that serve as fundamental evidence for judges during decision-making. Second, it is necessary to consider the evolution of legal principles over time, as early cases may adhere to different legal contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T21:18:05Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Exploiting Contrastive Learning and Numerical Evidence for Confusing Legal Judgment Prediction [46.71918729837462]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-15T15:53:56Z)
• ILDC for CJPE: Indian Legal Documents Corpus for Court Judgment Prediction and Explanation [3.285073688021526]
  We propose the task of Court Judgment Prediction and Explanation (CJPE) CJPE requires an automated system to predict an explainable outcome of a case. Our best prediction model has an accuracy of 78% versus 94% for human legal experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-28T03:07:32Z)
• 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)
• Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) Amid the Advent of Autonomous AI Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  Legal Judgment Prediction is a longstanding and open topic in the theory and practice-of-law. Various methods and techniques to predict legal cases and judicial actions have emerged over time. The advent of AI Legal Reasoning will have a pronounced impact on how LJP is performed and its predictive accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-29T00:12:42Z)

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.