Enabling Discriminative Reasoning in LLMs for Legal Judgment Prediction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01964v4
• Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 02:06:20 GMT
• Title: Enabling Discriminative Reasoning in LLMs for Legal Judgment Prediction
• Authors: Chenlong Deng, Kelong Mao, Yuyao Zhang, Zhicheng Dou,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 23.046342240176575
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Legal judgment prediction is essential for enhancing judicial efficiency. In this work, we identify that existing large language models (LLMs) underperform in this domain due to challenges in understanding case complexities and distinguishing between similar charges. To adapt LLMs for effective legal judgment prediction, we introduce the Ask-Discriminate-Predict (ADAPT) reasoning framework inspired by human judicial reasoning. ADAPT involves decomposing case facts, discriminating among potential charges, and predicting the final judgment. We further enhance LLMs through fine-tuning with multi-task synthetic trajectories to improve legal judgment prediction accuracy and efficiency under our ADAPT framework. Extensive experiments conducted on two widely-used datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our framework in legal judgment prediction, particularly when dealing with complex and confusing charges.

Related papers

• Optimizing Numerical Estimation and Operational Efficiency in the Legal Domain through Large Language Models [13.067312163677933]
  We propose a novel approach integrating Large Language Models with specially designed prompts to address precision requirements in legal Artificial Intelligence (LegalAI) applications. To validate this method, we introduce a curated dataset tailored to precision-oriented LegalAI tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-26T18:46:39Z)
• Chain-of-Thought Prompting for Demographic Inference with Large Multimodal Models [58.58594658683919]
  Large multimodal models (LMMs) have shown transformative potential across various research tasks. Our findings indicate LMMs possess advantages in zero-shot learning, interpretability, and handling uncurated 'in-the-wild' inputs. We propose a Chain-of-Thought augmented prompting approach, which effectively mitigates the off-target prediction issue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T16:26:56Z)
• 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)
• Multi-Defendant Legal Judgment Prediction via Hierarchical Reasoning [49.23103067844278]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-10T04:46:30Z)
• 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)
• Prototype-Based Interpretability for Legal Citation Prediction [16.660004925391842]
  We design the task with parallels to the thought-process of lawyers, i.e., with reference to both precedents and legislative provisions. After initial experimental results, we refine the target citation predictions with the feedback of legal experts. We introduce a prototype architecture to add interpretability, achieving strong performance while adhering to decision parameters used by lawyers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-25T21:40:58Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.