Explainable machine learning multi-label classification of Spanish legal judgements

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.17610v1
• Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 19:16:42 GMT
• Title: Explainable machine learning multi-label classification of Spanish legal judgements
• Authors: Francisco de Arriba-Pérez, Silvia García-Méndez, Francisco J. González-Castaño, Jaime González-González,
• Abstract summary: We propose a hybrid system that applies Machine Learning for multi-label classification of judgements (sentences) and visual and natural language descriptions for explanation purposes. Our solution achieves over 85 % micro precision on a labelled data set annotated by legal experts.
• Score: 6.817247544942709
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Artificial Intelligence techniques such as Machine Learning (ML) have not been exploited to their maximum potential in the legal domain. This has been partially due to the insufficient explanations they provided about their decisions. Automatic expert systems with explanatory capabilities can be specially useful when legal practitioners search jurisprudence to gather contextual knowledge for their cases. Therefore, we propose a hybrid system that applies ML for multi-label classification of judgements (sentences) and visual and natural language descriptions for explanation purposes, boosted by Natural Language Processing techniques and deep legal reasoning to identify the entities, such as the parties, involved. We are not aware of any prior work on automatic multi-label classification of legal judgements also providing natural language explanations to the end-users with comparable overall quality. Our solution achieves over 85 % micro precision on a labelled data set annotated by legal experts. This endorses its interest to relieve human experts from monotonous labour-intensive legal classification tasks.

Related papers

• Judgement Citation Retrieval using Contextual Similarity [0.0]
  We propose a methodology that combines natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning techniques to enhance the organization and utilization of legal case descriptions. Our methodology addresses two primary objectives: unsupervised clustering and supervised citation retrieval. Our methodology achieved an impressive accuracy rate of 90.9%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T04:22:28Z)
• Automatic explanation of the classification of Spanish legal judgments in jurisdiction-dependent law categories with tree estimators [6.354358255072839]
  This work contributes with a system combining Natural Language Processing (NLP) with Machine Learning (ML) to classify legal texts in an explainable manner. We analyze the features involved in the decision and the threshold bifurcation values of the decision paths of tree structures. Legal experts have validated our solution, and this knowledge has also been incorporated into the explanation process as "expert-in-the-loop" dictionaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-30T17:59:43Z)
• 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)
• LLM vs. Lawyers: Identifying a Subset of Summary Judgments in a Large UK Case Law Dataset [0.0]
  This study addresses the gap in the literature working with large legal corpora about how to isolate cases, in our case summary judgments, from a large corpus of UK court decisions. We use the Cambridge Law Corpus of 356,011 UK court decisions and determine that the large language model achieves a weighted F1 score of 0.94 versus 0.78 for keywords. We identify and extract 3,102 summary judgment cases, enabling us to map their distribution across various UK courts over a temporal span.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T10:13:30Z)
• The Ethics of Automating Legal Actors [58.81546227716182]
  We argue that automating the role of the judge raises difficult ethical challenges, in particular for common law legal systems. Our argument follows from the social role of the judge in actively shaping the law, rather than merely applying it. Even in the case the models could achieve human-level capabilities, there would still be remaining ethical concerns inherent in the automation of the legal process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-01T13:48:46Z)
• 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)
• AUTOLEX: An Automatic Framework for Linguistic Exploration [93.89709486642666]
  We propose an automatic framework that aims to ease linguists' discovery and extraction of concise descriptions of linguistic phenomena. Specifically, we apply this framework to extract descriptions for three phenomena: morphological agreement, case marking, and word order. We evaluate the descriptions with the help of language experts and propose a method for automated evaluation when human evaluation is infeasible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-25T20:37:30Z)
• Lawformer: A Pre-trained Language Model for Chinese Legal Long Documents [56.40163943394202]
  We release the Longformer-based pre-trained language model, named as Lawformer, for Chinese legal long documents understanding. We evaluate Lawformer on a variety of LegalAI tasks, including judgment prediction, similar case retrieval, legal reading comprehension, and legal question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-09T09:39:25Z)
• A Dataset for Statutory Reasoning in Tax Law Entailment and Question Answering [37.66486350122862]
  This paper investigates the performance of natural language understanding approaches on statutory reasoning. We introduce a dataset, together with a legal-domain text corpus. We contrast this with a hand-constructed Prolog-based system, designed to fully solve the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-11T16:54:42Z)
• How Does NLP Benefit Legal System: A Summary of Legal Artificial Intelligence [81.04070052740596]
  Legal Artificial Intelligence (LegalAI) focuses on applying the technology of artificial intelligence, especially natural language processing, to benefit tasks in the legal domain. This paper introduces the history, the current state, and the future directions of research in LegalAI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-25T14:45:15Z)
• Distinguish Confusing Law Articles for Legal Judgment Prediction [30.083642130015317]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is the task of automatically predicting a law case's judgment results given a text describing its facts. We present an end-to-end model, LADAN, to solve the task of LJP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-06T11:09:44Z)

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.