How Vital is the Jurisprudential Relevance: Law Article Intervened Legal Case Retrieval and Matching
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.18292v1
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 15:29:07 GMT
- Title: How Vital is the Jurisprudential Relevance: Law Article Intervened Legal Case Retrieval and Matching
- Authors: Nuo Xu, Pinghui Wang, Zi Liang, Junzhou Zhao, Xiaohong Guan,
- Abstract summary: Legal case retrieval (LCR) aims to automatically scour for comparable legal cases based on a given query.<n>To address them, a daunting challenge is assessing the uniquely defined legal-rational similarity within the judicial domain.<n>We propose an end-to-end model named LCM-LAI to solve the above challenges.
- Score: 31.378981566988063
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Legal case retrieval (LCR) aims to automatically scour for comparable legal cases based on a given query, which is crucial for offering relevant precedents to support the judgment in intelligent legal systems. Due to similar goals, it is often associated with a similar case matching (LCM) task. To address them, a daunting challenge is assessing the uniquely defined legal-rational similarity within the judicial domain, which distinctly deviates from the semantic similarities in general text retrieval. Past works either tagged domain-specific factors or incorporated reference laws to capture legal-rational information. However, their heavy reliance on expert or unrealistic assumptions restricts their practical applicability in real-world scenarios. In this paper, we propose an end-to-end model named LCM-LAI to solve the above challenges. Through meticulous theoretical analysis, LCM-LAI employs a dependent multi-task learning framework to capture legal-rational information within legal cases by a law article prediction (LAP) sub-task, without any additional assumptions in inference. Besides, LCM-LAI proposes an article-aware attention mechanism to evaluate the legal-rational similarity between across-case sentences based on law distribution, which is more effective than conventional semantic similarity. Weperform a series of exhaustive experiments including two different tasks involving four real-world datasets. Results demonstrate that LCM-LAI achieves state-of-the-art performance.
Related papers
- 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) - 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) - 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) - 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) - 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) - 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) - An interpretability framework for Similar case matching [8.747801053040256]
This study proposes an integrated pipeline framework for interpretable SCM.
The framework comprises four modules: judicial feature sentence identification, case matching, feature sentence alignment, and conflict resolution.
The experimental results show the effectiveness of our proposed framework, establishing a new benchmark for interpretable SCM.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-04T08:25:12Z) - 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 Element-oriented Modeling with Multi-view Contrastive Learning for
Legal Case Retrieval [3.909749182759558]
We propose an interaction-focused network for legal case retrieval with a multi-view contrastive learning objective.
Case-view contrastive learning minimizes the hidden space distance between relevant legal case representations.
We employ a legal element knowledge-aware indicator to detect legal elements of cases.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-11T06:47:23Z) - 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.