Abstract:Legal judgment prediction (LJP) presents a formidable challenge in artificial intelligence, demanding intricate comprehension of legal texts, nuanced interpretation of statutes, and complex reasoning over multifaceted case elements. While recent advancements in natural language processing have shown promise, existing approaches often struggle to capture the sophisticated interplay between facts, legal principles, and precedents that characterize legal decision-making. This paper introduces LegalReasoner, a novel multi-stage framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) and integrates domain-specific knowledge for enhanced legal judgment prediction. Our approach encompasses four key stages: 1) legal knowledge infusion, where we pre-train an LLM on a vast corpus of legal literature using contrastive learning techniques; 2) case-law retrieval, employing a graph neural network to identify relevant precedents and statutes; 3) multi-hop reasoning, utilizing a transformer-based architecture with a hierarchical attention mechanism to navigate complex legal arguments; and 4) judgment synthesis, where we employ a generative adversarial network to produce coherent and legally sound judgments. We evaluate LegalReasoner on two diverse datasets: the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) cases and the Chinese AI and Law Challenge (CAIL2018). Our framework demonstrates substantial improvements over state-of-the-art baselines, achieving an average accuracy increase of 7.8% across all datasets. Furthermore, we conduct extensive ablation studies and interpretability analyses to elucidate the contributions of each component and provide insights into the model's decision-making process. Our work not only advances the field of automated legal reasoning but also offers a transparent and explainable system that could serve as a valuable tool for legal professionals. By bridging the gap between AI and legal expertise, LegalReasoner paves the way for more efficient, consistent, and fair legal decision-making processes.

Case Law Grounding: Using Precedents to Align Decision-Making for Humans and AI

Case Repositories: Towards Case-Based Reasoning for AI Alignment

When Precedents Clash

What About the Precedent: An Information-Theoretic Analysis of Common Law

Alignment Between the Decision-Making Logic of LLMs and Human Cognition: A Case Study on Legal LLMs

Legal Minds, Algorithmic Decisions: How LLMs Apply Constitutional Principles in Complex Scenarios

Collective Constitutional AI: Aligning a Language Model with Public Input

Rules, Cases, and Reasoning: Positivist Legal Theory as a Framework for Pluralistic AI Alignment

IterAlign: Iterative Constitutional Alignment of Large Language Models

Extensionally defining principles and cases in ethics: An AI model

Advancing Legal Reasoning: The Integration of AI to Navigate Complexities and Biases in Global Jurisprudence with Semi-Automated Arbitration Processes (SAAPs)

Public Constitutional AI

LegalReasoner: A Multi-Stage Framework for Legal Judgment Prediction via Large Language Models and Knowledge Integration

Evaluating the role of `Constitutions' for learning from AI feedback

Using Edge Cases to Disentangle Fairness and Solidarity in AI Ethics

Arguments Grounded in Cases : A Computational Approach

Evaluating AI for Law: Bridging the Gap with Open-Source Solutions

AI and Legal Argumentation: Aligning the Autonomous Levels of AI Legal Reasoning

Ethical Reasoning over Moral Alignment: A Case and Framework for In-Context Ethical Policies in LLMs

AgentsCourt: Building Judicial Decision-Making Agents with Court Debate Simulation and Legal Knowledge Augmentation

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Rules, Standards, and Judicial Discretion