اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدLegal Search in Case Law and Statute Law
158
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
In this work we describe a method to identify document pairwise relevance in the context of a typical legal document collection: limited resources, long queries and long documents. We review the usage of generalized language models, including supervised and unsupervised learning. We observe how our method, while using text summaries, overperforms existing baselines based on full text, and motivate potential improvement directions for future work.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is the task of automatically predicting a law cases judgment results given a text describing its facts, which has excellent prospects in judicial assistance systems and convenient services for the public. In practice,
confusing charges are frequent, because law cases applicable to similar law articles are easily misjudged. For addressing this issue, the existing method relies heavily on domain experts, which hinders its application in different law systems. In this paper, we present an end-to-end model, LADAN, to solve the task of LJP. To distinguish confusing charges, we propose a novel graph neural network to automatically learn subtle differences between confusing law articles and design a novel attention mechanism that fully exploits the learned differences to extract compelling discriminative features from fact descriptions attentively. Experiments conducted on real-world datasets demonstrate the superiority of our LADAN.
In a legal system, judgment consistency is regarded as one of the most important manifestations of fairness. However, due to the complexity of factual elements that impact sentencing in real-world scenarios, few works have been done on quantitatively
measuring judgment consistency towards real-world data. In this paper, we propose an evaluation metric for judgment inconsistency, Legal Inconsistency Coefficient (LInCo), which aims to evaluate inconsistency between data groups divided by specific features (e.g., gender, region, race). We propose to 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. Experimental results on the synthetic data verify the effectiveness of LInCo. We further 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; (2) The level of regional inconsistency varies little across different time periods; (3) In general, judicial inconsistency is negatively correlated with the severity of the criminal charges. Besides, we use LInCo to evaluate the performance of several de-bias methods, such as adversarial learning, and find that these mechanisms can effectively help LJP models to avoid suffering from data bias.
Large, pre-trained transformer models like BERT have achieved state-of-the-art results on document understanding tasks, but most implementations can only consider 512 tokens at a time. For many real-world applications, documents can be much longer, a
nd the segmentation strategies typically used on longer documents miss out on document structure and contextual information, hurting their results on downstream tasks. In our work on legal agreements, we find that visual cues such as layout, style, and placement of text in a document are strong features that are crucial to achieving an acceptable level of accuracy on long documents. We measure the impact of incorporating such visual cues, obtained via computer vision methods, on the accuracy of document understanding tasks including document segmentation, entity extraction, and attribute classification. Our method of segmenting documents based on structural metadata out-performs existing methods on four long-document understanding tasks as measured on the Contract Understanding Atticus Dataset.
Citing legal opinions is a key part of legal argumentation, an expert task that requires retrieval, extraction and summarization of information from court decisions. The identification of legally salient parts in an opinion for the purpose of citatio
n may be seen as a domain-specific formulation of a highlight extraction or passage retrieval task. As similar tasks in other domains such as web search show significant attention and improvement, progress in the legal domain is hindered by the lack of resources for training and evaluation. This paper presents a new dataset that consists of the citation graph of court opinions, which cite previously published court opinions in support of their arguments. In particular, we focus on the verbatim quotes, i.e., where the text of the original opinion is directly reused. With this approach, we explain the relative importance of different text spans of a court opinion by showcasing their usage in citations, and measuring their contribution to the relations between opinions in the citation graph. We release VerbCL, a large-scale dataset derived from CourtListener and introduce the task of highlight extraction as a single-document summarization task based on the citation graph establishing the first baseline results for this task on the VerbCL dataset.
In this research, we have established, through empirical testing, a law that relates the number of translating hops to translation accuracy in sequential machine translation in Google Translate. Both accuracy and size decrease with the number of hops
; the former displays a decrease closely following a power law. Such a law allows one to predict the behavior of translation chains that may be built as society increasingly depends on automated devices.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
