Towards Supporting Legal Argumentation with NLP: Is More Data Really All You Need?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.10974v3
• Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:59:34 GMT
• Title: Towards Supporting Legal Argumentation with NLP: Is More Data Really All You Need?
• Authors: T. Y. S. S Santosh, Kevin D. Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Matthias Grabmair,
• Abstract summary: Legal reasoning and argumentation justifying decisions in cases has always been central to AI & Law. Recent developments in legal NLP have increasingly focused on statistically classifying legal conclusions from text. This paper reviews both traditional symbolic works in AI & Law and recent advances in legal NLP.
• Score: 1.6311895940869516
• License:
• Abstract: Modeling legal reasoning and argumentation justifying decisions in cases has always been central to AI & Law, yet contemporary developments in legal NLP have increasingly focused on statistically classifying legal conclusions from text. While conceptually simpler, these approaches often fall short in providing usable justifications connecting to appropriate legal concepts. This paper reviews both traditional symbolic works in AI & Law and recent advances in legal NLP, and distills possibilities of integrating expert-informed knowledge to strike a balance between scalability and explanation in symbolic vs. data-driven approaches. We identify open challenges and discuss the potential of modern NLP models and methods that integrate

Related papers

• 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)
• Towards Explainability in Legal Outcome Prediction Models [64.00172507827499]
  We argue that precedent is a natural way of facilitating explainability for legal NLP models. By developing a taxonomy of legal precedent, we are able to compare human judges and neural models. We find that while the models learn to predict outcomes reasonably well, their use of precedent is unlike that of human judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T15:15:41Z)
• Report of the 1st Workshop on Generative AI and Law [78.62063815165968]
  This report presents the takeaways of the inaugural Workshop on Generative AI and Law (GenLaw) A cross-disciplinary group of practitioners and scholars from computer science and law convened to discuss the technical, doctrinal, and policy challenges presented by law for Generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-11T04:13:37Z)
• The Legal Argument Reasoning Task in Civil Procedure [2.079168053329397]
  We present a new NLP task and dataset from the domain of the U.S. civil procedure. Each instance of the dataset consists of a general introduction to the case, a particular question, and a possible solution argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-05T17:41:00Z)
• Legal Detection of AI Products Based on Formal Argumentation and Legal Ontology [4.286330841427189]
  Current paper presents a structured argumentation framework for reasoning in legal contexts. We show that using this combined theory of formal argumentation and DL-based legal logic, acceptable assertions can be obtained.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-07T11:08:08Z)
• Mining Legal Arguments in Court Decisions [43.09204050756282]
  We develop a new annotation scheme for legal arguments in proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights. Second, we compile and annotate a large corpus of 373 court decisions. Third, we train an argument mining model that outperforms state-of-the-art models in the legal NLP domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-12T08:59:55Z)
• 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)
• On the Ethical Limits of Natural Language Processing on Legal Text [9.147707153504117]
  We argue that researchers struggle when it comes to identifying ethical limits to using natural language processing systems. We place emphasis on three crucial normative parameters which have, to the best of our knowledge, been underestimated by current debates. For each of these three parameters we provide specific recommendations for the legal NLP community.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-06T15:22:24Z)
• 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)

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.