Similar articles

Abstract: In constructing a smart court, to provide intelligent assistance for achieving more efficient, fair, and explainable trial proceedings, we propose a full-process intelligent trial system (FITS). In the proposed FITS, we introduce essential tasks for constructing a smart court, including information extraction, evidence classification, question generation, dialogue summarization, judgment prediction, and judgment document generation. Specifically, the preliminary work involves extracting elements from legal texts to assist the judge in identifying the gist of the case efficiently. With the extracted attributes, we can justify each piece of evidence‘s validity by establishing its consistency across all evidence. During the trial process, we design an automatic questioning robot to assist the judge in presiding over the trial. It consists of a finite state machine representing procedural questioning and a deep learning model for generating factual questions by encoding the context of utterance in a court debate. Furthermore, FITS summarizes the controversy focuses that arise from a court debate in real time, constructed under a multi-task learning framework, and generates a summarized trial transcript in the dialogue inspectional summarization (DIS) module. To support the judge in making a decision, we adopt first-order logic to express legal knowledge and embed it in deep neural networks (DNNs) to predict judgments. Finally, we propose an attentional and counterfactual natural language generation (AC-NLG) to generate the court‘s judgment.

一种智慧法院的全流程智能化审判系统

[1]Aletras N, Tsarapatsanis D, Preoţiuc-Pietro D, et al., 2016. Predicting judicial decisions of the European court of human rights: a natural language processing perspective. PeerJ Comput Sci, 2:e93. doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.93

[2]Arditi D, Oksay FE, Tokdemir OB, 1998. Predicting the outcome of construction litigation using neural networks. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng, 13(2):75-81. doi: 10.1111/0885-9507.00087

[3]Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S, 2009. Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artif Intell Law, 17(2):125-165. doi: 10.1007/s10506-009-9077-9

[4]Chao WH, Jiang X, Luo ZC, et al., 2019. Interpretable charge prediction for criminal cases with dynamic rationale attention. J Artif Intell Res, 66:743-764. doi: 10.1613/jair.1.11377

[5]Dahbur K, Muscarello T, 2003. Classification system for serial criminal patterns. Artif Intell Law, 11(4):251-269. doi: 10.1023/B:ARTI.0000045994.96685.21

[6]Duan XY, Zhang YT, Yuan L, et al., 2019. Legal summarization for multi-role debate dialogue via controversy focus mining and multi-task learning. Proc 28^th ACM Int Conf on Information and Knowledge Management, p.1361-1370. doi: 10.1145/3357384.3357940

[7]Elnaggar A, Otto R, Matthes F, 2018. Deep learning for named-entity linking with transfer learning for legal documents. Proc Artificial Intelligence and Cloud Computing Conf, p.23-28. doi: 10.1145/3299819.3299846

[8]Gerani S, Mehdad Y, Carenini G, et al., 2014. Abstractive summarization of product reviews using discourse structure. Proc Conf on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, p.1602-1613.

[9]Goo CW, Chen YN, 2018. Abstractive dialogue summarization with sentence-gated modeling optimized by dialogue acts. IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop, p.735-742. doi: 10.1109/SLT.2018.8639531

[10]Graves A, Schmidhuber J, 2005. Framewise phoneme classification with bidirectional LSTM and other neural network architectures. Neur Netw, 18(5-6):602-610. doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2005.06.042

[11]Hochreiter S, Schmidhuber J, 1997. Long short-term memory. Neur Comput, 9(8):1735-1780. doi: 10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735

[12]Hu YK, Luo ZC, Chao WH, 2020. Identifying principals and accessories in a complex case based on the comprehension of fact description. Proc 58^th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, p.4265-4269. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.393

[13]Imbens GW, Rubin DB, 2015. Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: an Introduction. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.

[14]Jackson P, Al-Kofahi K, Tyrrell A, et al., 2003. Information extraction from case law and retrieval of prior cases. Artif Intell, 150(1-2):239-290. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00106-1

[15]Ji CZ, Zhou X, Zhang YT, et al., 2020. Cross copy network for dialogue generation. Proc Conf on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, p.1900-1910. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.149

[16]Kanapala A, Jannu S, Pamula R, 2019. Passage-based text summarization for legal information retrieval. Arab J Sci Eng, 44(11):9159-9169. doi: 10.1007/s13369-019-03998-1

[17]Katz DM, Bommarito MJII, Blackman J, 2017. A general approach for predicting the behavior of the supreme court of the United States. PLOS ONE, 12(4):e0174698. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174698

[18]Klement EP, Mesiar R, Pap E, 2000. Triangular Norms. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-9540-7

[19]Kuang K, Li L, Geng Z, et al., 2020. Causal inference. Engineering, 6(3):253-263. doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2019.08.016

[20]Lafferty JD, McCallum A, Pereira FCN, 2001. Conditional random fields: probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. Proc 18^th Int Conf on Machine Learning, p.282-289.

[21]Lample G, Ballesteros M, Subramanian S, et al., 2016. Neural architectures for named entity recognition. https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.01360

[22]Li T, Gupta V, Mehta M, et al., 2019. A logic-driven framework for consistency of neural models. Proc Conf on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9^th Int Joint Conf on Natural Language Processing, p.3924-3935. doi: 10.18653/v1/D19-1405

[23]Li T, Jawale PA, Palmer M, et al., 2020. Structured tuning for semantic role labeling. Proc 58^th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, p.8402-8412.

[24]Liu CL, Chen KC, 2019. Extracting the gist of Chinese judgments of the supreme court. Proc 17^th Int Conf on Artificial Intelligence and Law, p.73-82. doi: 10.1145/3322640.3326715

[25]Liu CY, Wang P, Xu J, et al., 2019. Automatic dialogue summary generation for customer service. Proc 25^th ACM SIGKDD Int Conf on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, p.1957-1965. doi: 10.1145/3292500.3330683

[26]Liu XJ, Gao FY, Zhang Q, et al., 2018. Graph convolution for multimodal information extraction from visually rich documents. Proc NAACL-HLT 2019, p.32-39.

[27]Luo BF, Feng YS, Xu JB, et al., 2017. Learning to predict charges for criminal cases with legal basis. Proc Conf on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, p.2727-2736.

[28]Medvedeva M, Vols M, Wieling M, 2020. Using machine learning to predict decisions of the European court of human rights. Artif Intell Law, 28(2):237-266. doi: 10.1007/s10506-019-09255-y

[29]Možina M, Žabkar J, Bench-Capon T, et al., 2005. Argument based machine learning applied to law. Artif Intell Law, 13(1):53-73. doi: 10.1007/s10506-006-9002-4

[30]Pearl J, 2009. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (2nd Ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.

[31]Pearl J, Glymour M, Jewell NP, 2016. Causal Inference in Statistics: a Primer. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.

[32]Sak H, Senior A, Beaufays F, 2014. Long short-term memory recurrent neural network architectures for large scale acoustic modeling. Proc 15^th Annual Conf of the Int Speech Communication Association, p.338-342.

[33]Sutton C, McCallum A, 2007. An introduction to conditional random fields for relational learning. In: Getoor L, Taskar B (Eds.), Introduction to Statistical Relational Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, p.268-373.

[34]Wang TY, Zhang YT, Liu XZ, et al., 2020. Masking orchestration: multi-task pretraining for multi-role dialogue representation learning. Proc 34^th AAAI Conf on Artificial Intelligence, p.9217-9224. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6459

[35]Wu YQ, Kuang K, Zhang YT, et al., 2020. De-biased court‘s view generation with causality. Proc Conf on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, p.763-780.

[36]Xiao CJ, Zhong HX, Guo ZP, et al., 2018. CAIL2018: a large-scale legal dataset for judgment prediction. https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.02478

[37]Xie YQ, Xu ZW, Kankanhalli MS, et al., 2019. Embedding symbolic knowledge into deep networks. Proc 33^rd Conf on Neural Information Processing Systems, p.4233-4243.

[38]Yang WM, Jia WJ, Zhou XJ, et al., 2019. Legal judgment prediction via multi-perspective bi-feedback network. Proc 28^th Int Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence, p.4085-4091.

[39]Yang ZC, Yang DY, Dyer C, et al., 2016. Hierarchical attention networks for document classification. Proc Conf of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, p.1480-1489. doi: 10.18653/v1/N16-1174

[40]Yang ZL, Salakhutdinov R, Cohen WW, 2017. Transfer learning for sequence tagging with hierarchical recurrent networks. Proc Int Conf on Learning Representations.

[41]Ye H, Jiang X, Luo ZC, et al., 2018. Interpretable charge predictions for criminal cases: learning to generate court views from fact descriptions. Proc Conf of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, p.1854-1864. doi: 10.18653/v1/N18-1168

[42]Zhao HS, Yang Y, Zhang Q, et al., 2018. Improve neural entity recognition via multi-task data selection and constrained decoding. Proc Conf of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, p.346-351. doi: 10.18653/v1/N18-2056

[43]Zhong HX, Guo ZP, Tu CC, et al., 2018. Legal judgment prediction via topological learning. Proc Conf on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, p.3540-3549. doi: 10.18653/v1/D18-1390

[44]Zhong HX, Xiao CJ, Tu CC, et al., 2020a. How does NLP benefit legal system: a summary of legal artificial intelligence. Proc 58^th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, p.5218-5230. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.466

[45]Zhong HX, Wang YZ, Tu CC, et al., 2020b. Iteratively questioning and answering for interpretable legal judgment prediction. Proc AAAI Conf on Artificial Intelligence, p.1250-1257. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v34i01.5479

[46]Zhou X, Zhang YT, Liu XZ, et al., 2019. Legal intelligence for e-commerce: multi-task learning by leveraging multiview dispute representation. Proc 42^nd Int ACM SIGIR Conf on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, p.315-324. doi: 10.1145/3331184.3331212