Gender Biased Legal Case Retrieval System on Users' Decision Process

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.00814v1
• Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 12:54:13 GMT
• Title: Gender Biased Legal Case Retrieval System on Users' Decision Process
• Abstract summary: Legal case search has become an important part of a legal practitioner's work. Gender bias in the legal case search results did not have a significant effect on judges' perceptions.
• Score: 14.764378117255609
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In the last decade, legal case search has become an important part of a legal practitioner's work. During legal case search, search engines retrieval a number of relevant cases from huge amounts of data and serve them to users. However, it is uncertain whether these cases are gender-biased and whether such bias has impact on user perceptions. We designed a new user experiment framework to simulate the judges' reading of relevant cases. 72 participants with backgrounds in legal affairs invited to conduct the experiment. Participants were asked to simulate the role of the judge in conducting a legal case search on 3 assigned cases and determine the sentences of the defendants in these cases. Gender of the defendants in both the task and relevant cases was edited to statistically measure the effect of gender bias in the legal case search results on participants' perceptions. The results showed that gender bias in the legal case search results did not have a significant effect on judges' perceptions.

Related papers

• 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)
• 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)
• An Intent Taxonomy of Legal Case Retrieval [43.22489520922202]
  Legal case retrieval is a special Information Retrieval(IR) task focusing on legal case documents. We present a novel hierarchical intent taxonomy of legal case retrieval. We reveal significant differences in user behavior and satisfaction under different search intents in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-25T07:27:32Z)
• Legal Element-oriented Modeling with Multi-view Contrastive Learning for Legal Case Retrieval [3.909749182759558]
  We propose an interaction-focused network for legal case retrieval with a multi-view contrastive learning objective. Case-view contrastive learning minimizes the hidden space distance between relevant legal case representations. We employ a legal element knowledge-aware indicator to detect legal elements of cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-11T06:47:23Z)
• Case law retrieval: problems, methods, challenges and evaluations in the last 20 years [23.13408774493739]
  We survey methods for case law retrieval from the past 20 years. We outline the problems and challenges facing evaluation of case law retrieval systems going forward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-15T06:01:36Z)
• Identifying biases in legal data: An algorithmic fairness perspective [3.8073142980733]
  We study the problem of identifying and measuring biases in large-scale legal case data from an algorithmic fairness perspective. Our approach utilizes two regression models: A baseline that represents the decisions of a "typical" judge as given by the data and a "fair" judge that applies one of three fairness concepts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-21T04:05:12Z)
• 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)
• What About the Precedent: An Information-Theoretic Analysis of Common Law [64.49276556192073]
  In common law, the outcome of a new case is determined mostly by precedent cases, rather than existing statutes. We are the first to approach this question by comparing two longstanding jurisprudential views. We find that the precedent's arguments share 0.38 nats of information with the case's outcome, whereas precedent's facts only share 0.18 nats of information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-25T11:20:09Z)
• 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.