Similar Case Matching (SCM) plays a pivotal role in the legal system by facilitating the efficient identification of similar cases for legal professionals. While previous research has primarily concentrated on enhancing the performance of SCM models, the aspect of interpretability has been neglected. To bridge the gap, this study proposes an integrated pipeline framework for interpretable SCM. The framework comprises four modules: judicial feature sentence identification, case matching, feature sentence alignment, and conflict resolution. In contrast to current SCM methods, our framework first extracts feature sentences within a legal case that contain essential information. Then it conducts case matching based on these extracted features. Subsequently, our framework aligns the corresponding sentences in two legal cases to provide evidence of similarity. In instances where the results of case matching and feature sentence alignment exhibit conflicts, the conflict resolution module resolves these inconsistencies. Experimental results demonstrate a significant improvement, with our framework achieving a final score of 76.91%, exceeding the baseline by 30%. The experimental results show the effectiveness of our proposed framework, establishing a new benchmark for interpretable SCM.
DelgadoFBarocasSLevyK. An uncommon task: Participatory design in legal ai. Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact2022; 6: 11–23. DOI: 10.1145/3512898
2.
SchwemerSFTomadaLPasiniT. Legal ai systems in the eu’s proposed artificial intelligence act. In: Proceedings of the second international workshop on ai and intelligent assistance for legal professionals in the digital workplace (LegalAIIA 2021), held in conjunction with ICAIL, 2021.
3.
WangNTianMY. intelligent justice: human-centered considerations in china’s legal ai transformation. AI and Ethics2022; 3: 1–6.
4.
SertMFYildirimEIrfanH. Using artificial intelligence to predict decisions of the turkish constitutional court. Soc Sci Comput Rev2022; 40: 1416–1435.
5.
SaravananMRavindranBRamanS. Improving legal information retrieval using an ontological framework. Artif Intell Law2009; 17: 101–124.
6.
RaghavKReddyPKReddyVB. Analyzing the extraction of relevant legal judgments using paragraph-level and citation information. AI4JC Artif Intell Just2016; 30: 1–8.
7.
ZhangJZhaoYSalehM, et al.Pegasus: Pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization. In: International conference on machine learning, 2020, pp.11328–11339. PMLR.
8.
ShaoYMaoJLiuY, et al.Bert-pli: Modeling paragraph-level interactions for legal case retrieval. In: IJCAI, 2020, pp.3501–3507.
9.
LinCXuekeJ. Legal regulation of algorithms from the perspective of interpretability. Cross-Cult Commun2020; 16: 65–75.
10.
YanhongL. Research on the interpretability of artificial intelligence and the legal liability of ai. Legal Syst Soc Dev2020.
11.
ZhangYTinoPLeonardisA, et al.A survey on neural network interpretability. IEEE Trans Emerg Top Comput Intell2021; 5: 726–742.
12.
ZhongHXiaoCTuC, et al.How does NLP benefit legal system: A summary of legal artificial intelligence. In: Proceedings of the 58th Annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, 2020, pp.5218–5230. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.466.
13.
XiaoCZhongHGuoZ, et al.Cail2018: A large-scale legal dataset for judgment prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:180702478 2018.
14.
KanoYKimMYYoshiokaM, et al.Coliee-2018: Evaluation of the competition on legal information extraction and entailment. In: JSAI International symposium on artificial intelligence, 2018, pp.177–192. Springer.
15.
LockeDZucconG. A test collection for evaluating legal case law search. In: The 41st International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. SIGIR ’18, 2018, p.1261–1264. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450356572. DOI: 10.1145/3209978.3210161.
16.
XiaoCZhongHGuoZ, et al.Cail2019-scm: A dataset of similar case matching in legal domain. arXiv preprint arXiv:191108962 2019.
17.
TranVNguyenMLSatohK. Building legal case retrieval systems with lexical matching and summarization using a pre-trained phrase scoring model. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ICAIL ’19, 2018, p.275–282. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450367547. DOI: 10.1145/3322640.3326740.
18.
SugathadasaKAyeshaBde SilvaN, et al.Legal document retrieval using document vector embeddings and deep learning. In: Arai K, Kapoor S and Bhatia R (eds.) Intelligent Computing, 2018, pp.160–175. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
19.
PengDYangJLuJ. Similar case matching with explicit knowledge-enhanced text representation. Appl Soft Comput2020; 95: 106514.
20.
HongZZhouQZhangR, et al.Legal feature enhanced semantic matching network for similar case matching. In: 2020 International joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN), 2020, pp.1–8. DOI: 10.1109/IJCNN48605.2020.9207528.
21.
LiHLuJLeY, et al.Iacn: Interactive attention capsule network for similar case matching. Intell Data Anal2022; 26: 525–541.
22.
LiHAiQChenJ, et al.Sailer: Structure-aware pre-trained language model for legal case retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. SIGIR ’23, 2023, p.1035–1044. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450394086. DOI: 10.1145/3539618.3591761.
23.
YuWSunZXuJ, et al.Explainable legal case matching via inverse optimal transport-based rationale extraction. In: Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. SIGIR ’22, 2022, p.657–668. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450387323. DOI: 10.1145/3477495.3531974.
24.
ChenZYeLZhangH, et al.Siamese capsule network with position correlation and integrating articles of law for chinese similar case matching. J Intell Fuzzy Syst2024; 46: 4713–4731.
25.
XiongJQiuY. Deep text understanding model for similar case matching. IEEE Access2024; 12: 109877.
26.
LiuYOttMGoyalN, et al.Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:190711692 2019.
27.
YanHDingYLiP, et al.Mind the class weight bias: Weighted maximum mean discrepancy for unsupervised domain adaptation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), 2017.
28.
GoodfellowIJShlensJSzegedyC. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:14126572 2014.
29.
SatoMSuzukiJShindoH, et al.Interpretable adversarial perturbation in input embedding space for text. arXiv preprint arXiv:180502917 2018.
30.
MiyatoTDaiAMGoodfellowI. Adversarial training methods for semi-supervised text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:160507725 2016.
