End-to-End Optimization and Learning of Fair Court Schedules

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.17415v1
• Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:40:53 GMT
• Title: End-to-End Optimization and Learning of Fair Court Schedules
• Authors: My H Dinh, James Kotary, Lauryn P. Gouldin, William Yeoh, Ferdinando Fioretto,
• Abstract summary: Criminal courts across the United States handle millions of cases every year. Defendants' scheduling preferences often take the least priority. This paper proposes a joint optimization and learning framework that combines machine learning models trained end-to-end with efficient matching algorithms.
• Score: 46.76273076646004
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Criminal courts across the United States handle millions of cases every year, and the scheduling of those cases must accommodate a diverse set of constraints, including the preferences and availability of courts, prosecutors, and defense teams. When criminal court schedules are formed, defendants' scheduling preferences often take the least priority, although defendants may face significant consequences (including arrest or detention) for missed court dates. Additionally, studies indicate that defendants' nonappearances impose costs on the courts and other system stakeholders. To address these issues, courts and commentators have begun to recognize that pretrial outcomes for defendants and for the system would be improved with greater attention to court processes, including \emph{court scheduling practices}. There is thus a need for fair criminal court pretrial scheduling systems that account for defendants' preferences and availability, but the collection of such data poses logistical challenges. Furthermore, optimizing schedules fairly across various parties' preferences is a complex optimization problem, even when such data is available. In an effort to construct such a fair scheduling system under data uncertainty, this paper proposes a joint optimization and learning framework that combines machine learning models trained end-to-end with efficient matching algorithms. This framework aims to produce court scheduling schedules that optimize a principled measure of fairness, balancing the availability and preferences of all parties.

Related papers

• ASP2LJ : An Adversarial Self-Play Laywer Augmented Legal Judgment Framework [21.003203706712643]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) aims to predict judicial outcomes, including relevant legal charge, terms, and fines.<n>Current datasets, derived from authentic cases, suffer from high human annotation costs and imbalanced distributions.<n>We propose an Adversarial Self-Play Lawyer Augmented Legal Judgment Framework, called ASP2LJ.<n>Our framework enables a judge to reference evolved lawyers' arguments, improving the objectivity, fairness, and rationality of judicial decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T06:55:40Z)
• RLJP: Legal Judgment Prediction via First-Order Logic Rule-enhanced with Large Language Models [58.69183479148083]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is a pivotal task in legal AI.<n>Existing LJP models integrate judicial precedents and legal knowledge for high performance.<n>But they neglect legal reasoning logic, a critical component of legal judgments requiring rigorous logical analysis.<n>This paper proposes a rule-enhanced legal judgment prediction framework based on first-order logic (FOL) formalism and comparative learning (CL)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T14:50:21Z)
• AppealCase: A Dataset and Benchmark for Civil Case Appeal Scenarios [47.83822985839837]
  We present the AppealCase dataset, consisting of 10,000 pairs of real-world, matched first-instance and second-instance documents across 91 categories of civil cases.<n>The dataset also includes detailed annotations along five dimensions central to appellate review: judgment reversals, reversal reasons, cited legal provisions, claim-level decisions, and whether there is new information in the second instance.<n> Experimental results reveal that all current models achieve less than 50% F1 scores on the judgment reversal prediction task, highlighting the complexity and challenge of the appeal scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T10:50:33Z)
• AnnoCaseLaw: A Richly-Annotated Dataset For Benchmarking Explainable Legal Judgment Prediction [56.797874973414636]
  AnnoCaseLaw is a first-of-its-kind dataset of 471 meticulously annotated U.S. Appeals Court negligence cases. Our dataset lays the groundwork for more human-aligned, explainable Legal Judgment Prediction models. Results demonstrate that LJP remains a formidable task, with application of legal precedent proving particularly difficult.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T19:14:48Z)
• Low-Resource Court Judgment Summarization for Common Law Systems [32.13166048504629]
  We present CLSum, the first dataset for summarizing multi-jurisdictional common law court judgment documents. This is the first court judgment summarization work adopting large language models (LLMs) in data augmentation, summary generation, and evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T12:47:42Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• The Update-Equivalence Framework for Decision-Time Planning [78.44953498421854]
  We introduce an alternative framework for decision-time planning that is not based on solving subgames, but rather on update equivalence. We derive a provably sound search algorithm for fully cooperative games based on mirror descent and a search algorithm for adversarial games based on magnetic mirror descent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-25T20:28:55Z)
• Algorithmic Learning Foundations for Common Law [5.961705913076256]
  This paper looks at a common law legal system as a learning algorithm, models specific features of legal proceedings, and asks whether this system learns efficiently. A particular feature of our model is explicitly viewing various aspects of court proceedings as learning algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-07T00:39:36Z)
• Sequential Multi-task Learning with Task Dependency for Appeal Judgment Prediction [28.505366852202794]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) aims to automatically predict judgment results, such as charges, relevant law articles, and the term of penalty. This paper concerns a worthwhile but not well-studied LJP task, Appeal judgment Prediction (AJP), which predicts the judgment of an appellate court on an appeal case. We propose a Sequential Multi-task Learning Framework with Task Dependency for Appeal Judgement Prediction (SMAJudge) to address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-09T08:51:13Z)
• Learning to be Fair: A Consequentialist Approach to Equitable Decision-Making [21.152377319502705]
  We present an alternative framework for designing equitable algorithms. In our approach, one first elicits stakeholder preferences over the space of possible decisions. We then optimize over the space of decision policies, making trade-offs in a way that maximizes the elicited utility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-18T00:30:43Z)
• Learning to Limit Data Collection via Scaling Laws: Data Minimization Compliance in Practice [62.44110411199835]
  We build on literature in machine learning law to propose framework for limiting collection based on data interpretation that ties data to system performance. We formalize a data minimization criterion based on performance curve derivatives and provide an effective and interpretable piecewise power law technique.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-16T19:59:01Z)
• 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)

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.