Multi-Defendant Legal Judgment Prediction via Hierarchical Reasoning
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.05762v1
- Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2023 04:46:30 GMT
- Title: Multi-Defendant Legal Judgment Prediction via Hierarchical Reasoning
- Authors: Yougang Lyu, Jitai Hao, Zihan Wang, Kai Zhao, Shen Gao, Pengjie Ren,
Zhumin Chen, Fang Wang, Zhaochun Ren
- Abstract summary: 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.
- Score: 49.23103067844278
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Multiple defendants in a criminal fact description generally exhibit complex
interactions, and cannot be well handled by existing Legal Judgment Prediction
(LJP) methods which focus on predicting judgment results (e.g., law articles,
charges, and terms of penalty) for single-defendant cases. To address this
problem, 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. To tackle the
first challenge, we formalize the multi-defendant judgment process as
hierarchical reasoning chains and introduce a multi-defendant LJP method, named
Hierarchical Reasoning Network (HRN), which follows the hierarchical reasoning
chains to determine criminal relationships, sentencing circumstances, law
articles, charges, and terms of penalty for each defendant. To tackle the
second challenge, we collect a real-world multi-defendant LJP dataset, namely
MultiLJP, to accelerate the relevant research in the future. Extensive
experiments on MultiLJP verify the effectiveness of our proposed HRN.
Related papers
- JudgeRank: Leveraging Large Language Models for Reasoning-Intensive Reranking [81.88787401178378]
We introduce JudgeRank, a novel agentic reranker that emulates human cognitive processes when assessing document relevance.
We evaluate JudgeRank on the reasoning-intensive BRIGHT benchmark, demonstrating substantial performance improvements over first-stage retrieval methods.
In addition, JudgeRank performs on par with fine-tuned state-of-the-art rerankers on the popular BEIR benchmark, validating its zero-shot generalization capability.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-31T18:43:12Z) - 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) - 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) - 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) - A Survey on Legal Judgment Prediction: Datasets, Metrics, Models and
Challenges [73.34944216896837]
Legal judgment prediction (LJP) applies Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques to predict judgment results based on fact descriptions automatically.
We analyze 31 LJP datasets in 6 languages, present their construction process and define a classification method of LJP.
We show the state-of-art results for 8 representative datasets from different court cases and discuss the open challenges.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-11T04:06:28Z) - 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) - Legal Judgment Prediction with Multi-Stage CaseRepresentation Learning
in the Real Court Setting [25.53133777558123]
We introduce a novel dataset from real courtrooms to predict the legal judgment in a reasonably encyclopedic manner.
An extensive set of experiments with a large civil trial data set shows that the proposed model can more accurately characterize the interactions among claims, fact and debate for legal judgment prediction.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-07-12T04:27:14Z) - 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)
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.