Query-driven Relevant Paragraph Extraction from Legal Judgments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.00595v1
• Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:03:39 GMT
• Title: Query-driven Relevant Paragraph Extraction from Legal Judgments
• Authors: T. Y. S. S Santosh, Elvin Quero Hernandez, Matthias Grabmair,
• Abstract summary: Legal professionals often grapple with navigating lengthy legal judgements to pinpoint information that directly address their queries. This paper focus on this task of extracting relevant paragraphs from legal judgements based on the query. We construct a specialized dataset for this task from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) using the case law guides.
• Score: 1.2562034805037443
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Legal professionals often grapple with navigating lengthy legal judgements to pinpoint information that directly address their queries. This paper focus on this task of extracting relevant paragraphs from legal judgements based on the query. We construct a specialized dataset for this task from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) using the case law guides. We assess the performance of current retrieval models in a zero-shot way and also establish fine-tuning benchmarks using various models. The results highlight the significant gap between fine-tuned and zero-shot performance, emphasizing the challenge of handling distribution shift in the legal domain. We notice that the legal pre-training handles distribution shift on the corpus side but still struggles on query side distribution shift, with unseen legal queries. We also explore various Parameter Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) methods to evaluate their practicality within the context of information retrieval, shedding light on the effectiveness of different PEFT methods across diverse configurations with pre-training and model architectures influencing the choice of PEFT method.

Related papers

• LegalOne: A Family of Foundation Models for Reliable Legal Reasoning [54.57434222018289]
  We present LegalOne, a family of foundational models specifically tailored for the Chinese legal domain.<n>LegalOne is developed through a comprehensive three-phase pipeline designed to master legal reasoning.<n>We publicly release the LegalOne weights and the LegalKit evaluation framework to advance the field of Legal AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T10:18:32Z)
• PLawBench: A Rubric-Based Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Real-World Legal Practice [67.71760070255425]
  We introduce PLawBench, a practical benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in legal practice scenarios.<n>PLawBench comprises 850 questions across 13 practical legal scenarios, with each question accompanied by expert-designed evaluation rubrics.<n>Using an LLM-based evaluator aligned with human expert judgments, we evaluate 10 state-of-the-art LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T11:36:10Z)
• Structured Definitions and Segmentations for Legal Reasoning in LLMs: A Study on Indian Legal Data [27.162165587035176]
  Large Language Models (LLMs), trained on extensive datasets from the web, exhibit remarkable general reasoning skills.<n>However, they often struggle in specialized areas like law, mainly because they lack domain-specific pretraining.<n>Previous studies have examined in-context approaches to address the knowledge gap, boosting model performance in new domains without full domain alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-14T13:24:00Z)
• GLARE: Agentic Reasoning for Legal Judgment Prediction [60.13483016810707]
  Legal judgment prediction (LJP) has become increasingly important in the legal field.<n>Existing large language models (LLMs) have significant problems of insufficient reasoning due to a lack of legal knowledge.<n>We introduce GLARE, an agentic legal reasoning framework that dynamically acquires key legal knowledge by invoking different modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T13:38:12Z)
• Augmented Question-guided Retrieval (AQgR) of Indian Case Law with LLM, RAG, and Structured Summaries [0.0]
  This paper proposes the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to facilitate the retrieval of relevant cases.<n>Our approach combines Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) with structured summaries optimized for Indian case law.<n>The system generates targeted legal questions based on factual scenarios to identify relevant case law more effectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-23T05:24:44Z)
• A Law Reasoning Benchmark for LLM with Tree-Organized Structures including Factum Probandum, Evidence and Experiences [76.73731245899454]
  We propose a transparent law reasoning schema enriched with hierarchical factum probandum, evidence, and implicit experience. Inspired by this schema, we introduce the challenging task, which takes a textual case description and outputs a hierarchical structure justifying the final decision. This benchmark paves the way for transparent and accountable AI-assisted law reasoning in the Intelligent Court''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T10:26:54Z)
• (Mis)Fitting: A Survey of Scaling Laws [52.598843243928584]
  We discuss discrepancies in the conclusions that several prior works reach, on questions such as the optimal token to parameter ratio. We survey over 50 papers that study scaling trends. We propose a checklist for authors to consider while contributing to scaling law research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T09:27:54Z)
• 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)
• LawLLM: Law Large Language Model for the US Legal System [43.13850456765944]
  We introduce the Law Large Language Model (LawLLM), a multi-task model specifically designed for the US legal domain. LawLLM excels at Similar Case Retrieval (SCR), Precedent Case Recommendation (PCR), and Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) We propose customized data preprocessing techniques for each task that transform raw legal data into a trainable format.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-27T21:51:30Z)
• Empowering Prior to Court Legal Analysis: A Transparent and Accessible Dataset for Defensive Statement Classification and Interpretation [5.646219481667151]
  This paper introduces a novel dataset tailored for classification of statements made during police interviews, prior to court proceedings. We introduce a fine-tuned DistilBERT model that achieves state-of-the-art performance in distinguishing truthful from deceptive statements. We also present an XAI interface that empowers both legal professionals and non-specialists to interact with and benefit from our system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-17T11:22:27Z)
• 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)
• Leveraging Large Language Models for Relevance Judgments in Legal Case Retrieval [18.058942674792604]
  We propose a novel few-shot workflow tailored to the relevant judgment of legal cases. By comparing the relevance judgments of LLMs and human experts, we empirically show that we can obtain reliable relevance judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T09:46:56Z)
• 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)
• CaseEncoder: A Knowledge-enhanced Pre-trained Model for Legal Case Encoding [15.685369142294693]
  CaseEncoder is a legal document encoder that leverages fine-grained legal knowledge in both the data sampling and pre-training phases. CaseEncoder significantly outperforms both existing general pre-training models and legal-specific pre-training models in zero-shot legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-09T12:40:19Z)
• SAILER: Structure-aware Pre-trained Language Model for Legal Case Retrieval [75.05173891207214]
  Legal case retrieval plays a core role in the intelligent legal system. Most existing language models have difficulty understanding the long-distance dependencies between different structures. We propose a new Structure-Aware pre-traIned language model for LEgal case Retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-22T10:47:01Z)
• Zero Shot Transfer of Legal Judgement Prediction as Article-aware Entailment for the European Court of Human Rights [1.4072904523937537]
  We cast Legal Judgment Prediction from text on European Court of Human Rights cases as an entailment task. This configuration facilitates the model learning legal reasoning ability in mapping article text to specific fact text. We devise zero-shot LJP experiments and apply domain adaptation methods based on domain discriminator and Wasserstein distance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-01T17:20:52Z)
• Computing and Exploiting Document Structure to Improve Unsupervised Extractive Summarization of Legal Case Decisions [7.99536002595393]
  We propose an unsupervised graph-based ranking model that uses a reweighting algorithm to exploit document structure. Results on the Canadian Legal Case Law dataset show that our proposed method outperforms several strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-06T22:20:42Z)
• 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.