Shouvik Kumar Guha

Ashutosh Modi, Prathamesh Kalamkar, Saurabh Karn et al.

In populous countries, pending legal cases have been growing exponentially. There is a need for developing NLP-based techniques for processing and automatically understanding legal documents. To promote research in the area of Legal NLP we organized the shared task LegalEval - Understanding Legal Texts at SemEval 2023. LegalEval task has three sub-tasks: Task-A (Rhetorical Roles Labeling) is about automatically structuring legal documents into semantically coherent units, Task-B (Legal Named Entity Recognition) deals with identifying relevant entities in a legal document and Task-C (Court Judgement Prediction with Explanation) explores the possibility of automatically predicting the outcome of a legal case along with providing an explanation for the prediction. In total 26 teams (approx. 100 participants spread across the world) submitted systems paper. In each of the sub-tasks, the proposed systems outperformed the baselines; however, there is a lot of scope for improvement. This paper describes the tasks, and analyzes techniques proposed by various teams.

Soham Wasmatkar, Subinay Adhikary, Rakshit Rohan et al.

In 2011, Judea Pearl received the Turing Award, considered the Nobel Prize in Computing, for fundamental contributions to artificial intelligence through the development of a calculus for probabilistic and causal reasoning. It includes pioneering the development of causal discovery algorithms. These computer algorithms can analyze large multivariate datasets and automatically discover the causal relationships among the constituent variables. They have been widely used in many critical fields such as medicine and economics to support decisions. However, to our knowledge, they have not been leveraged in law. This paper attempts to alleviate this gap by investigating whether causal discovery algorithms can be leveraged for automated generation of legal arguments. To that end, a novel legal dataset is prepared by identifying 17 legal concepts, such as physical assault and property dispute. A curated collection of 150 homicide cases are annotated with these concepts, e.g., a case is annotated with physical assault only if a physical assault had been reported in that case. Subsequently, a selected set of widely-used causal discovery algorithms is applied to the annotated dataset to discover the causal relationships between the legal concepts. Additionally, the degrees of belief associated with the discovered relationships are quantified in mathematical probabilities. It is shown that some of the causal relationships help generate viable legal arguments, e.g., if one could establish that a physical assault has not taken place during a homicide, it should be a sufficient condition (with probability 1) to establish that the homicide has not been committed due to a property-related dispute. Thus, this paper shows that causal discovery algorithms can be helpful in generating legal arguments, opening up avenues for promising future endeavors.

Amit Barman, Devangan Roy, Debapriya Paul et al.

There is an evident lack of implementation of Machine Learning (ML) in the legal domain in India, and any research that does take place in this domain is usually based on data from the higher courts of law and works with English data. The lower courts and data from the different regional languages of India are often overlooked. In this paper, we deploy a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) architecture on a corpus of Hindi legal documents. We perform a bail Prediction task with the help of a CNN model and achieve an overall accuracy of 93\% which is an improvement on the benchmark accuracy, set by Kapoor et al. (2022), albeit in data from 20 districts of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh.

Vijit Malik, Rishabh Sanjay, Shouvik Kumar Guha et al.

Legal documents are unstructured, use legal jargon, and have considerable length, making them difficult to process automatically via conventional text processing techniques. A legal document processing system would benefit substantially if the documents could be segmented into coherent information units. This paper proposes a new corpus of legal documents annotated (with the help of legal experts) with a set of 13 semantically coherent units labels (referred to as Rhetorical Roles), e.g., facts, arguments, statute, issue, precedent, ruling, and ratio. We perform a thorough analysis of the corpus and the annotations. For automatically segmenting the legal documents, we experiment with the task of rhetorical role prediction: given a document, predict the text segments corresponding to various roles. Using the created corpus, we experiment extensively with various deep learning-based baseline models for the task. Further, we develop a multitask learning (MTL) based deep model with document rhetorical role label shift as an auxiliary task for segmenting a legal document. The proposed model shows superior performance over the existing models. We also experiment with model performance in the case of domain transfer and model distillation techniques to see the model performance in limited data conditions.

Vijit Malik, Rishabh Sanjay, Shubham Kumar Nigam et al.

An automated system that could assist a judge in predicting the outcome of a case would help expedite the judicial process. For such a system to be practically useful, predictions by the system should be explainable. To promote research in developing such a system, we introduce ILDC (Indian Legal Documents Corpus). ILDC is a large corpus of 35k Indian Supreme Court cases annotated with original court decisions. A portion of the corpus (a separate test set) is annotated with gold standard explanations by legal experts. Based on ILDC, we propose the task of Court Judgment Prediction and Explanation (CJPE). The task requires an automated system to predict an explainable outcome of a case. We experiment with a battery of baseline models for case predictions and propose a hierarchical occlusion based model for explainability. Our best prediction model has an accuracy of 78% versus 94% for human legal experts, pointing towards the complexity of the prediction task. The analysis of explanations by the proposed algorithm reveals a significant difference in the point of view of the algorithm and legal experts for explaining the judgments, pointing towards scope for future research.