Answering Yes/No Questions in Legal Bar Exams

The development of Question Answering (QA) systems has become important because it reveals research issues that require insight from a variety of disciplines, including Artificial Intelligence, Information Extraction, Natural Language Processing, and Psychology. Our goal here is to develop a QA approach to answer yes/no questions relevant to civil laws in legal bar exams. A bar examination is intended to determine whether a candidate is qualified to practice law in a given jurisdiction. We have found that the development of a QA system for this task provides insight into the challenges of formalizing reasoning about legal text, and about how to exploit advances in computational linguistics. We separate our QA approach into two steps. The first step is to identify legal documents relevant to the exam questions; the second step is to answer the questions by analyzing the relevant documents. In our initial approach described here, the first step has been already solved for us: the appropriate articles for each question have been identified by legal experts. So here, we focus on the second task, which can be considered as a form of Recognizing Textual Entailment (RTE), where input to the system is a question sentence and its corresponding civil law article(s), and the output is a binary answer: whether the question sentence is entailed from the article(s). We propose a hybrid method, which combines simple rules and an unsupervised learning model using deep linguistic features. We first construct a knowledge base for negation and antonym words for the legal domain. We then identify potential premise and conclusion components of input questions and documents, based on text patterns and separating commas. We further classify the questions into easy and difficult ones, and develop a two-phase method for answering yes/no questions. We answer easy questions by negation/antonym detection. For more difficult questions, we adapt an unsupervised machine learning method based on morphological, syntactic, and lexical semantic analysis on identified premises and conclusions. This provides the basis to compare the semantic correlation between a question and a legal article. Our experimental results show reasonable performance, which improves the baseline system, and outperforms an SVM-based supervised machine learning model.