Legal NLP remains underdeveloped in regions like India due to the scarcity of structured datasets. We introduce IndianBailJudgments-1200, a new benchmark dataset comprising 1200 Indian court judgments on bail decisions, annotated across 20+ attributes including bail outcome, IPC sections, crime type, and legal reasoning. Annotations were generated using a prompt-engineered GPT-4o pipeline and verified for consistency. This resource supports a wide range of legal NLP tasks such as outcome prediction, summarization, and fairness analysis, and is the first publicly available dataset focused specifically on Indian bail jurisprudence.
Against the macro-background of "carbon peaking and carbon neutrality" goals, eco-environment protection regulations are increasingly stricter. Facing high government regulatory risks and frequent environment lawsuits, corporate environmental compliance starts to play a vital role in healthy corporate operation. Law fulfillment routes constitute a critical part in corporate environmental compliance. Few academic scholars have conducted a profound analysis or discussion of legal accomplishment routes for corporate environmental compliances. As a matter of fact, legal routes for accomplishing corporate environmental compliance should be based proper theories concerning corporate environmental rights and obligations as well as dual layer nested governance structure (government environmental power and corporate environmental liabilities). Under the guidance of environmental jurisprudence, enterprises are responsible for setting up practical legal fulfillment routes for their environmental compliance-related rights and obligations. A diversified environmental governance layout composed of government regulation, enterprise self-discipline and social participation should be established. Within enterprises, effective legal routes should be developed for dealing with government regulatory risks and environment lawsuit risks at the same time.
This paper argues that model-free reinforcement learning (RL) agents, while lacking explicit planning mechanisms, exhibit behaviours that can be analogised to System 1 ("thinking fast") processes in human cognition. Unlike model-based RL agents, which operate akin to System 2 ("thinking slow") reasoning by leveraging internal representations for planning, model-free agents react to environmental stimuli without anticipatory modelling. We propose a novel framework linking the dichotomy of System 1 and System 2 to the distinction between model-free and model-based RL. This framing challenges the prevailing assumption that intentionality and purposeful behaviour require planning, suggesting instead that intentionality can manifest in the structured, reactive behaviours of model-free agents. By drawing on interdisciplinary insights from cognitive psychology, legal theory, and experimental jurisprudence, we explore the implications of this perspective for attributing responsibility and ensuring AI safety. These insights advocate for a broader, contextually informed interpretation of intentionality in RL systems, with implications for their ethical deployment and regulation.
The debate surrounding the 'future of work' is saturated with alarmist warnings about the loss of work as an intrinsically valuable activity. Instead, the present doctoral research approaches this debate from the perspective of human flourishing (eudaimonia). It articulates a neo-Aristotelian interpretation according to which the prospect of mass AI-driven automation, far from being a threat, is rather desirable insofar as it facilitates humans' flourishing and, subsequently, their engagement in leisure. Drawing on virtue jurisprudence, this research further explores what this desirability may imply for the current legal order.
Predicting case criticality helps legal professionals in the court system manage large volumes of case law. This paper introduces the Criticality Prediction dataset, a new resource for evaluating the potential influence of Swiss Federal Supreme Court decisions on future jurisprudence. Unlike existing approaches that rely on resource-intensive manual annotations, we semi-automatically derive labels leading to a much larger dataset than otherwise possible. Our dataset features a two-tier labeling system: (1) the LD-Label, which identifies cases published as Leading Decisions (LD), and (2) the Citation-Label, which ranks cases by their citation frequency and recency. This allows for a more nuanced evaluation of case importance. We evaluate several multilingual models, including fine-tuned variants and large language models, and find that fine-tuned models consistently outperform zero-shot baselines, demonstrating the need for task-specific adaptation. Our contributions include the introduction of this task and the release of a multilingual dataset to the research community.
Fairness is an important objective throughout society. From the distribution of limited goods such as education, over hiring and payment, to taxes, legislation, and jurisprudence. Due to the increasing importance of machine learning approaches in all areas of daily life including those related to health, security, and equity, an increasing amount of research focuses on fair machine learning. In this work, we focus on the fairness of partition- and prototype-based models. The contribution of this work is twofold: 1) we develop a general framework for fair machine learning of partition-based models that does not depend on a specific fairness definition, and 2) we derive a fair version of learning vector quantization (LVQ) as a specific instantiation. We compare the resulting algorithm against other algorithms from the literature on theoretical and real-world data showing its practical relevance.
This paper presents a probabilistic approach to analyzing copyright infringement disputes. Under this approach, evidentiary principles shaped by case law are formalized in probabilistic terms, allowing for a mathematical examination of issues arising in such disputes. The usefulness of this approach is showcased through its application to the ``inverse ratio rule'' -- a controversial legal doctrine adopted by some courts. Although this rule has faced significant criticism, a formal proof demonstrates its validity, provided it is properly defined. Furthermore, the paper employs the probabilistic approach to study the copyright safety of generative AI. Specifically, the Near Access-Free (NAF) condition, previously proposed as a strategy for mitigating the heightened copyright infringement risks of generative AI, is evaluated. The analysis reveals that, while the NAF condition mitigates some infringement risks, its justifiability and efficacy are questionable in certain contexts. These findings illustrate how taking a probabilistic perspective can enhance our understanding of copyright jurisprudence and its interaction with generative AI technology.
Landmark judgments are of prime importance in the Common Law System because of their exceptional jurisprudence and frequent references in other judgments. In this work, we leverage contextual references available in citing judgments to create an extractive summary of the target judgment. We evaluate the proposed algorithm on two datasets curated from the judgments of Indian Courts and find the results promising.
Artificial Intelligence techniques such as Machine Learning (ML) have not been exploited to their maximum potential in the legal domain. This has been partially due to the insufficient explanations they provided about their decisions. Automatic expert systems with explanatory capabilities can be specially useful when legal practitioners search jurisprudence to gather contextual knowledge for their cases. Therefore, we propose a hybrid system that applies ML for multi-label classification of judgements (sentences) and visual and natural language descriptions for explanation purposes, boosted by Natural Language Processing techniques and deep legal reasoning to identify the entities, such as the parties, involved. We are not aware of any prior work on automatic multi-label classification of legal judgements also providing natural language explanations to the end-users with comparable overall quality. Our solution achieves over 85 % micro precision on a labelled data set annotated by legal experts. This endorses its interest to relieve human experts from monotonous labour-intensive legal classification tasks.
This study consists of a novel approach toward the analysis of court judgments spanning five countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Rwanda, Sweden and Hong Kong. This study also explores the intersection of the latest advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and legal analysis, emphasizing the role of AI (specifically generative AI) in identifying human biases and facilitating automated, valid, and coherent multisided argumentation of court judgments with the goal of ensuring consistent application of laws in and across various jurisdictions. By incorporating Advanced Language Models (ALMs) and a newly introduced human-AI collaborative framework, this paper seeks to analyze Grounded Theory-based research design with Advanced Language Models (ALMs) in the practice of law. SHIRLEY is the name of the AI-based application (built on top of OpenAI's GPT technology), focusing on detecting logical inconsistencies and biases across various legal decisions. SHIRLEY analysis is aggregated and is accompanied by a comparison-oriented AI-based application called SAM (also an ALM) to identify relative deviations in SHIRLEY bias detections. Further, a CRITIC is generated within semi-autonomous arbitration process via the ALM, SARA. A novel approach is introduced in the utilization of an AI arbitrator to critically evaluate biases and qualitative-in-nature nuances identified by the aforementioned AI applications (SAM in concert with SHIRLEY), based on the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration. This Semi-Automated Arbitration Process (SAAP) aims to uphold the integrity and fairness of legal judgments by ensuring a nuanced debate-resultant "understanding" through a hybrid system of AI and human-based collaborative analysis.
We demonstrate that large language models can produce reasonable numerical ratings of the logical consistency of claims. We also outline a mathematical approach based on sheaf theory for lifting such ratings to hypertexts such as laws, jurisprudence, and social media and evaluating their consistency globally. This approach is a promising avenue to increasing consistency in and of government, as well as to combating mis- and disinformation and related ills.
Generative language models (LMs) are increasingly used for document class-prediction tasks and promise enormous improvements in cost and efficiency. Existing research often examines simple classification tasks, but the capability of LMs to classify on complex or specialized tasks is less well understood. We consider a highly complex task that is challenging even for humans: the classification of legal reasoning according to jurisprudential philosophy. Using a novel dataset of historical United States Supreme Court opinions annotated by a team of domain experts, we systematically test the performance of a variety of LMs. We find that generative models perform poorly when given instructions (i.e. prompts) equal to the instructions presented to human annotators through our codebook. Our strongest results derive from fine-tuning models on the annotated dataset; the best performing model is an in-domain model, LEGAL-BERT. We apply predictions from this fine-tuned model to study historical trends in jurisprudence, an exercise that both aligns with prominent qualitative historical accounts and points to areas of possible refinement in those accounts. Our findings generally sound a note of caution in the use of generative LMs on complex tasks without fine-tuning and point to the continued relevance of human annotation-intensive classification methods.
Migrant laborers subject to ROK's Employment Permit System(EPS) must strike a balance between host country's high wage and 'Depreciation of skill-relevance entailed by immigration', whilst taking account of the 'migration costs'. This study modelizes the optimization mechanism of migrant workers and the firms hiring them -- then induces the solution of the very model, namely, 'Subgame Perfect Nash Equilibrium(SPNE)', by utilizing game theory's 'backward induction' method. Analyzing the dynamics between variables at SPNE state, the attained stylized facts are what as follows; [1]Host nation's skill-relevance and wage differential have positive correlation. [2]Emigrating nation's skill-relevance and wage differential have negative correlation. Both stylized facts -- [1,2] -- are operationalized into 'Host nation skill-relevance hypothesis(H1)' and 'Emigrating nation skill-relevance hypothesis(H2)', respectively; of which are thoroughly tested by OLS linear regression analysis. In all sex/gender parameters(Total/Men/Women), test results support both hypotheses with statistical significance, thereby inductively substantiating the constructed model. This paper contributes to existing labor immigration literature in three following aspects: (1)Stimulate the economic approach to migrant labor analysis, and by such means, break away from the overflow of sociology, anthropology, political science, and jurisprudence in prior studies; (2)Shed a light on the EPS's microeconomic interaction process, of which was left undisclosed as a 'black box'; (3)Seek a complementary synthesis of two grand strands of research methodology -- that is, deductive modeling and inductive statistics.
New Natural Langauge Process~(NLP) benchmarks are urgently needed to align with the rapid development of large language models (LLMs). We present Xiezhi, the most comprehensive evaluation suite designed to assess holistic domain knowledge. Xiezhi comprises multiple-choice questions across 516 diverse disciplines ranging from 13 different subjects with 249,587 questions and accompanied by Xiezhi-Specialty and Xiezhi-Interdiscipline, both with 15k questions. We conduct evaluation of the 47 cutting-edge LLMs on Xiezhi. Results indicate that LLMs exceed average performance of humans in science, engineering, agronomy, medicine, and art, but fall short in economics, jurisprudence, pedagogy, literature, history, and management. We anticipate Xiezhi will help analyze important strengths and shortcomings of LLMs, and the benchmark is released in~\url{https://github.com/MikeGu721/XiezhiBenchmark}.
A basic task for most Legal Artificial Intelligence (Legal AI) applications is Named Entity Recognition (NER). However, texts produced in the context of legal practice make references to entities that are not trivially recognized by the currently available NERs. There is a lack of categorization of legislation, jurisprudence, evidence, penalties, the roles of people in a legal process (judge, lawyer, victim, defendant, witness), types of locations (crime location, defendant's address), etc. In this sense, there is still a need for a robust golden collection, annotated with fine-grained entities of the legal domain, and which covers various documents of a legal process, such as petitions, inquiries, complaints, decisions and sentences. In this article, we describe the development of the Golden Collection of the Brazilian Judiciary (CDJUR-BR) contemplating a set of fine-grained named entities that have been annotated by experts in legal documents. The creation of CDJUR-BR followed its own methodology that aimed to attribute a character of comprehensiveness and robustness. Together with the CDJUR-BR repository we provided a NER based on the BERT model and trained with the CDJUR-BR, whose results indicated the prevalence of the CDJUR-BR.
In recent years fairness in machine learning (ML) has emerged as a highly active area of research and development. Most define fairness in simple terms, where fairness means reducing gaps in performance or outcomes between demographic groups while preserving as much of the accuracy of the original system as possible. This oversimplification of equality through fairness measures is troubling. Many current fairness measures suffer from both fairness and performance degradation, or "levelling down," where fairness is achieved by making every group worse off, or by bringing better performing groups down to the level of the worst off. When fairness can only be achieved by making everyone worse off in material or relational terms through injuries of stigma, loss of solidarity, unequal concern, and missed opportunities for substantive equality, something would appear to have gone wrong in translating the vague concept of 'fairness' into practice. This paper examines the causes and prevalence of levelling down across fairML, and explore possible justifications and criticisms based on philosophical and legal theories of equality and distributive justice, as well as equality law jurisprudence. We find that fairML does not currently engage in the type of measurement, reporting, or analysis necessary to justify levelling down in practice. We propose a first step towards substantive equality in fairML: "levelling up" systems by design through enforcement of minimum acceptable harm thresholds, or "minimum rate constraints," as fairness constraints. We likewise propose an alternative harms-based framework to counter the oversimplified egalitarian framing currently dominant in the field and push future discussion more towards substantive equality opportunities and away from strict egalitarianism by default. N.B. Shortened abstract, see paper for full abstract.
Artificial intelligence is not only increasingly used in business and administration contexts, but a race for its regulation is also underway, with the EU spearheading the efforts. Contrary to existing literature, this article suggests, however, that the most far-reaching and effective EU rules for AI applications in the digital economy will not be contained in the proposed AI Act - but have just been enacted in the Digital Markets Act. We analyze the impact of the DMA and related EU acts on AI models and their underlying data across four key areas: disclosure requirements; the regulation of AI training data; access rules; and the regime for fair rankings. The paper demonstrates that fairness, in the sense of the DMA, goes beyond traditionally protected categories of non-discrimination law on which scholarship at the intersection of AI and law has so far largely focused on. Rather, we draw on competition law and the FRAND criteria known from intellectual property law to interpret and refine the DMA provisions on fair rankings. Moreover, we show how, based on CJEU jurisprudence, a coherent interpretation of the concept of non-discrimination in both traditional non-discrimination and competition law may be found. The final part sketches specific proposals for a comprehensive framework of transparency, access, and fairness under the DMA and beyond.
The effectiveness of the BERT model on multiple linguistic tasks has been well documented. On the other hand, its potentials for narrow and specific domains such as Legal, have not been fully explored. In this paper, we examine how BERT can be used in the Arabic legal domain and try customizing this language model for several downstream tasks using several different domain-relevant training and testing datasets to train BERT from scratch. We introduce the AraLegal-BERT, a bidirectional encoder Transformer-based model that have been thoroughly tested and carefully optimized with the goal to amplify the impact of NLP-driven solution concerning jurisprudence, legal documents, and legal practice. We fine-tuned AraLegal-BERT and evaluated it against three BERT variations for Arabic language in three natural languages understanding (NLU) tasks. The results show that the base version of AraLegal-BERT achieve better accuracy than the general and original BERT over the Legal text.
Game theory has by now found numerous applications in various fields, including economics, industry, jurisprudence, and artificial intelligence, where each player only cares about its own interest in a noncooperative or cooperative manner, but without obvious malice to other players. However, in many practical applications, such as poker, chess, evader pursuing, drug interdiction, coast guard, cyber-security, and national defense, players often have apparently adversarial stances, that is, selfish actions of each player inevitably or intentionally inflict loss or wreak havoc on other players. Along this line, this paper provides a systematic survey on three main game models widely employed in adversarial games, i.e., zero-sum normal-form and extensive-form games, Stackelberg (security) games, zero-sum differential games, from an array of perspectives, including basic knowledge of game models, (approximate) equilibrium concepts, problem classifications, research frontiers, (approximate) optimal strategy seeking techniques, prevailing algorithms, and practical applications. Finally, promising future research directions are also discussed for relevant adversarial games.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to make important decisions about people. While issues of AI bias and proxy discrimination are well explored, less focus has been paid to the harms created by profiling based on groups that do not map to or correlate with legally protected groups such as sex or ethnicity. This raises a question: are existing equality laws able to protect against emergent AI-driven inequality? This article examines the legal status of algorithmic groups in North American and European non-discrimination doctrine, law, and jurisprudence and will show that algorithmic groups are not comparable to traditional protected groups. Nonetheless, these new groups are worthy of protection. I propose a new theory of harm - "the theory of artificial immutability" - that aims to bring AI groups within the scope of the law. My theory describes how algorithmic groups act as de facto immutable characteristics in practice that limit people's autonomy and prevent them from achieving important goals.