skip to main content
research-article

Legal Judgment Elements Extraction Approach with Law Article-aware Mechanism

Authors Info & Claims
Published:21 December 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Legal judgment elements extraction (LJEE) aims to identify the different judgment features from the fact description in legal documents automatically, which helps to improve the accuracy and interpretability of the judgment results. In real court rulings, judges usually need to scan both the fact descriptions and the law articles repeatedly to find out the relevant information, and it is hard to acquire the key judgment features quickly, so legal judgment elements extraction is a crucial and challenging task for legal judgment prediction. However, most existing methods follow the text classification framework, which fails to model the attentive relations of the law articles and the legal judgment elements. To address this issue, we simulate the working process of human judges, and propose a legal judgment elements extraction method with a law article-aware mechanism, which captures the complex semantic correlations of the law article and the legal judgment elements. Experimental results show that our proposed method achieves significant improvements than other state-of-the-art baselines on the element recognition task dataset. Compared with the BERT-CNN model, the proposed “All labels Law Articles Embedding Model (ALEM)” improves the accuracy, recall, and F1 value by 0.5, 1.4 and 1.0, respectively.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Devlin Jacob, Chang Ming-Wei. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT. 41714186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] Kim Yoon. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of EMNLP. 17461751.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. [3] Kort Fred. 1957. Predicting Supreme Court decisions mathematically: A quantitative analysis of the “right to counsel” cases. American Political Science Review 51, 1 (1957), 112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. [4] Nage Stuart. 1963. Applying correlation analysis to case prediction. Texas Law Review 42, 106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. [5] Ulmer Sidney. 1963. Quantitative analysis of judicial processes: Some practical and theoretical applications. Law and Contemporary Problems, 164184.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. [6] Ringquist E. and Emmert C.. 1999. Judicial policymaking in published and unpublished decisions: The case of environmental civil ligaton. Political Research Quarterly 52, 1 (1999), 737.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. [7] Lauderdale Benjamin. 2012. Tom Clark: The Supreme Court's many median justices. American Political Science Review. 106, 4 (2012), 847866.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. [8] Hu Zikun, Li Xiang, and Liu Zhiyuan. 2018. Few-shot charge prediction with discriminative legal attributes. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 487498.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] Liu Yihung and Chen Yenliang. 2015. Predicting associated statutes for legal problems. Information Processing & Management 51, 1 (2015), 194211.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [10] Zhang Hu, Wang Xin, and Tan Hongye. 2019. Applying data discretization to DPCNN for law article prediction. In Proceedings of NLPCC. 459470.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. [11] Long Shangbang, Tu Cunchao, and Liu Zhiyuan. 2018. Automatic judgment prediction via legal reading comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.06537v1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] Zhong Haoxi, Guo Zhipeng, and Liu Zhiyuan. 2018. Legal judgment prediction via topological learning. In Proceedings of EMNLP. 35403549.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. [13] Yang Wenmian, Jia Weijia, and Zhou Xiaojie. 2019. Legal judgment prediction via multi-perspective bi-feedback network. In Proceedings of IJCAI. 40854091. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. [14] Yang Ze, Wang Pengfei, and Zhang Lei. 2019. A recurrent attention network for judgment prediction. In Proceedings of the ICANN. 253266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. [15] Zhong Haoxi, Xiao Chaojun, and Liu Zhiyuan. 2020. How does NLP benefit legal system: A summary of legal artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of ACL (2020).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Chase Lipton Zachary. 2016. The mythos of model interpretability. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03490.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] Hendricks Lisa Anne and Akata Zeynep. 2016. Generating visual explanations. European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, Cham, 2016: 319.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. [18] Lei Tao and Barzilay Regina. 2016. Rationalizing neural predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.04155.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. [19] Wang Xiang and Feng Fuli. 2018. Tree-enhanced embedding model for explainable recommendation. Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2018: 15431552. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. [20] Kim Been. 2015. Interactive and interpretable machine learning models for human machine collaboration. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Pechenizkiy Mykola. 2004. PCA-based feature transformation for classification: Issues in medical diagnostics. Proceedings. 17th IEEE Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems. IEEE, 2004: 535540. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. [22] Zhong Haoxi, Wang Yuzhong, and Liu Zhiyuan. 2020. Iteratively questioning and answering for interpretable legal judgment prediction. In Proceedings of AAAI (2020).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Chouldechova Alexandra. 2017. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big Data, 5, 2 (2017), 153163.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. [24] Cardellino Cristian, Teruel Milagro, and Alemany Laura Alonso. 2017. Legal NERC with ontologies, Wikipedia and curriculum learning. In Proceedings of EACL (2017).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. [25] Cardellino Cristian, Teruel Milagro, and Alemany Laura Alonso. 2017. A low-cost, high-coverage legal named entity recognizer, classifier and linker. In Proceedings of EACL (2017). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. [26] Elnaggar Ahmed, Otto Robin, and Matthes Florian. 2018. Deep learning for named-entity linking with transfer learning for legal documents. In Proceedings of AICCC (2018). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. [27] Yin Xiaoxiao, Zheng Daqi, Lu Zhengdong, and Liu Ruifang. 2018. Neural entity reasoner for global consistency in named entity recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00347v1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. [28] Yan Yukun, Zheng Daqi, Lu Zhengdong, and Song Sen. 2017. Event identification as a decision process with non-linear representation of text. In Proceedings of IIPV (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. [29] Li Chuanyi, Sheng Yu, Ge Jidong, and Luo Bin. 2019. Apply event extraction techniques to the judicial field. The 2019 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. 492497. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [30] Collobert Ronan and Weston Jason. 2011. Natural language processing (almost) from scratch. In Proceedings of JMLR. 24932537. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. [31] Kalchbrenner Nal and Grefenstette Edward. 2014. A convolutional neural network for modelling sentences. In Proceedings of ACL. 655665.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. [32] Liao Jialu, Sun Fanke, and Gu Jinguang. 2017. Combining knowledge with deep convolutional neural networks for short text classification, In Proceedings of IJCAI. 29152921. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. [33] Johnson Rie and Zhang Tong. 2014. Effective use of word order for text categorization with convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.1058.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. [34] Xiao Yijun and Cho Kyunghyun. 2016. Efficient character-level document classification by combining convolution and recurrent layers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.00367.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. [35] Adhikari Ashutosh and Ram Achyudh. 2019. DocBERT: BERT for Document Classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.08398v1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. [36] Hochreiter Sepp and Schmidhuber Jurgen. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural Computation 9, 8 (1997), 17351780. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. [37] Kingma Diederik P. and Ba Jimmy Lei. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Legal Judgment Elements Extraction Approach with Law Article-aware Mechanism

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing
      ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing  Volume 21, Issue 3
      May 2022
      413 pages
      ISSN:2375-4699
      EISSN:2375-4702
      DOI:10.1145/3505182
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 21 December 2021
      • Accepted: 1 September 2021
      • Revised: 1 June 2021
      • Received: 1 March 2020
      Published in tallip Volume 21, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Refereed
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)173
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    View Full Text

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!