Semi-Supervised Methods for Explainable Legal Prediction

Legal decision-support systems have the potential to improve access to justice, administrative efficiency, and judicial consistency, but broad adoption of such systems is contingent on development of technologies with low knowledge-engineering, validation, and maintenance costs. This paper describes two approaches to an important form of legal decision support---explainable outcome prediction---that obviate both annotation of an entire decision corpus and manual processing of new cases. The first approach, which uses an Attention Network for prediction and attention weights to highlight salient case text, was shown to be capable of predicting decisions, but attention-weight-based text highlighting did not demonstrably improve human decision speed or accuracy in an evaluation with 61 human subjects. The second approach, termed SCALE (Semi-supervised Case Annotation for Legal Explanations), exploits structural and semantic regularities in case corpora to identify textual patterns that have both predictable relationships to case decisions and explanatory value.

[1]  D. Katz,et al.  A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States , 2016, PloS one.

[2]  Gillian K. Hadfield Rules for a Flat World: Why Humans Invented Law and How to Reinvent It for a Complex Global Economy , 2016 .

[3]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  The British Nationality Act as a logic program , 1986, CACM.

[4]  L. Karl Branting,et al.  Reasoning with Rules and Precedents: A Computational Model Of Legal Analysis , 1999 .

[5]  Jason Weston,et al.  A Neural Attention Model for Abstractive Sentence Summarization , 2015, EMNLP.

[6]  Adam L. Berger,et al.  A Maximum Entropy Approach to Natural Language Processing , 1996, CL.

[7]  David B. Boles,et al.  The Multiple Resources Questionnaire (MRQ) , 2001 .

[8]  Geoffrey Zweig,et al.  Linguistic Regularities in Continuous Space Word Representations , 2013, NAACL.

[9]  Jon Oberlander,et al.  Evaluation of semantic events for legal case retrieval , 2009, ESAIR '09.

[10]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Noise Induced Hearing Loss: An Application of the Angelic Methodology , 2017, JURIX.

[11]  Diyi Yang,et al.  Hierarchical Attention Networks for Document Classification , 2016, NAACL.

[12]  Paolo Torroni,et al.  Argumentation Mining , 2016, ACM Trans. Internet Techn..

[13]  Vincent A. W. M. M. Aleven,et al.  Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples , 1997 .

[14]  Mark Peterson,et al.  Rule-Based Models of Legal Expertise , 1980, AAAI.

[15]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes , 2009, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[16]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  Case-based reasoning and law , 2005, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[17]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  Toward adding knowledge to learning algorithms for indexing legal cases , 1999, ICAIL '99.

[18]  Nikolaos Aletras,et al.  Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective , 2016, PeerJ Comput. Sci..

[19]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation in artificial intelligence , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Edwina L. Rissland,et al.  BankXX: Supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[21]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[22]  Anthony Niblett,et al.  Using Machine Learning to Predict Outcomes in Tax Law , 2017 .

[23]  Edwina L. Rissland,et al.  Supporting Legal Arguments through Heuristic Retrieval , 1994 .

[24]  Joseph S. Dumas,et al.  Comparison of three one-question, post-task usability questionnaires , 2009, CHI.

[25]  Advaith Siddharthan,et al.  Recognizing cited facts and principles in legal judgements , 2017, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[26]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  Predicting outcomes of case based legal arguments , 2003, ICAIL.

[27]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translate , 2014, ICLR.

[28]  Josef van Genabith,et al.  Predicting the Law Area and Decisions of French Supreme Court Cases , 2017, RANLP.

[29]  Ramesh Nallapati,et al.  Risk analysis for intellectual property litigation , 2011, ICAIL.

[30]  Tomas Mikolov,et al.  Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information , 2016, TACL.

[31]  L. Thorne McCarty,et al.  Finding the right balance in artificial intelligence and law , 2018 .

[32]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[33]  Wim Peters,et al.  Lexical Semantics and Expert Legal Knowledge towards the Identification of Legal Case Factors , 2010, JURIX.

[34]  Karl Branting,et al.  Inducing Predictive Models for Decision Support in Administrative Adjudication , 2017, AICOL.

[35]  Tianqi Chen,et al.  XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System , 2016, KDD.