Towards Mitigating Perceived Unfairness in Contracts from a Non-Legal Stakeholder's Perspective

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.01398v1
• Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2023 13:52:32 GMT
• Title: Towards Mitigating Perceived Unfairness in Contracts from a Non-Legal Stakeholder's Perspective
• Authors: Anmol Singhal, Preethu Rose Anish, Shirish Karande, Smita Ghaisas
• Abstract summary: We conduct an empirical study to analyze the perspectives of different stakeholders regarding contractual fairness. We then investigate the ability of Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) to identify unfairness in contractual sentences.
• Score: 2.9748898344267776
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Commercial contracts are known to be a valuable source for deriving project-specific requirements. However, contract negotiations mainly occur among the legal counsel of the parties involved. The participation of non-legal stakeholders, including requirement analysts, engineers, and solution architects, whose primary responsibility lies in ensuring the seamless implementation of contractual terms, is often indirect and inadequate. Consequently, a significant number of sentences in contractual clauses, though legally accurate, can appear unfair from an implementation perspective to non-legal stakeholders. This perception poses a problem since requirements indicated in the clauses are obligatory and can involve punitive measures and penalties if not implemented as committed in the contract. Therefore, the identification of potentially unfair clauses in contracts becomes crucial. In this work, we conduct an empirical study to analyze the perspectives of different stakeholders regarding contractual fairness. We then investigate the ability of Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) to identify unfairness in contractual sentences by comparing chain of thought prompting and semi-supervised fine-tuning approaches. Using BERT-based fine-tuning, we achieved an accuracy of 84% on a dataset consisting of proprietary contracts. It outperformed chain of thought prompting using Vicuna-13B by a margin of 9%.

Related papers

• Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Offs: A Causal Perspective [58.06306331390586]
  We analyze the tension between fairness and accuracy from a causal lens for the first time. We show that enforcing a causal constraint often reduces the disparity between demographic groups. We introduce a new neural approach for causally-constrained fair learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T11:19:52Z)
• LegalPro-BERT: Classification of Legal Provisions by fine-tuning BERT Large Language Model [0.0]
  Contract analysis requires the identification and classification of key provisions and paragraphs within an agreement. LegalPro-BERT is a BERT transformer architecture model that we fine- tune to efficiently handle classification task for legal provisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T19:08:48Z)
• Generating Clarification Questions for Disambiguating Contracts [3.672364005691543]
  We introduce a novel legal NLP task that involves generating clarification questions for contracts. These questions aim to identify contract ambiguities on a document level, thereby assisting non-legal stakeholders. Experiments conducted on contracts sourced from the publicly available CUAD dataset show that ConRAP can detect ambiguities with an F2 score of 0.87.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-12T19:57:39Z)
• Reconciling Predictive and Statistical Parity: A Causal Approach [68.59381759875734]
  We propose a new causal decomposition formula for the fairness measures associated with predictive parity. We show that the notions of statistical and predictive parity are not really mutually exclusive, but complementary and spanning a spectrum of fairness notions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:23:22Z)
• What to Read in a Contract? Party-Specific Summarization of Legal Obligations, Entitlements, and Prohibitions [27.92767201633733]
  Reviewing key obligations, entitlements, and prohibitions in legal contracts can be a tedious task due to their length and domain-specificity. We propose a new task of party-specific extractive summarization for legal contracts to facilitate faster reviewing and improved comprehension of rights and duties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T19:53:14Z)
• ConReader: Exploring Implicit Relations in Contracts for Contract Clause Extraction [84.0634340572349]
  We study automatic Contract Clause Extraction (CCE) by modeling implicit relations in legal contracts. In this work, we first comprehensively analyze the complexity issues of contracts and distill out three implicit relations commonly found in contracts. We propose a novel framework ConReader to exploit the above three relations for better contract understanding and improving CCE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T02:15:18Z)
• Detecting Logical Relation In Contract Clauses [94.85352502638081]
  We develop an approach to automate the extraction of logical relations between clauses in a contract. The resulting approach should help contract authors detecting potential logical conflicts between clauses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-02T19:26:32Z)
• Multi-Stage Decentralized Matching Markets: Uncertain Preferences and Strategic Behaviors [91.3755431537592]
  This article develops a framework for learning optimal strategies in real-world matching markets. We show that there exists a welfare-versus-fairness trade-off that is characterized by the uncertainty level of acceptance. We prove that participants can be better off with multi-stage matching compared to single-stage matching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-13T19:25:52Z)
• Learning to Check Contract Inconsistencies [26.4596456440168]
  In many scenarios, a contract is written by filling the blanks in a precompiled form. Due to carelessness, two blanks that should be filled with the same (or different)content may be incorrectly filled with different (or same) content. In this work, we formulate a novel Contract Inconsistency Checking (CIC) problem, and design an end-to-end framework, called Pair-wise Blank Resolution (PBR) Our PBR model contains a novel BlankCoder to address the challenge of modeling meaningless blanks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-15T08:43:07Z)
• Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer Assignments [96.114824979298]
  Three important challenges in conference peer review are maliciously attempting to get assigned to certain papers and "torpedo reviewing" We present a framework that brings all these challenges under a common umbrella and present a (randomized) algorithm for reviewer assignment. Our algorithms can limit the chance that any malicious reviewer gets assigned to their desired paper to 50% while producing assignments with over 90% of the total optimal similarity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-29T23:55:53Z)

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.