-
CLERC: A Dataset for Legal Case Retrieval and Retrieval-Augmented Analysis Generation
Authors:
Abe Bohan Hou,
Orion Weller,
Guanghui Qin,
Eugene Yang,
Dawn Lawrie,
Nils Holzenberger,
Andrew Blair-Stanek,
Benjamin Van Durme
Abstract:
Legal professionals need to write analyses that rely on citations to relevant precedents, i.e., previous case decisions. Intelligent systems assisting legal professionals in writing such documents provide great benefits but are challenging to design. Such systems need to help locate, summarize, and reason over salient precedents in order to be useful. To enable systems for such tasks, we work with…
▽ More
Legal professionals need to write analyses that rely on citations to relevant precedents, i.e., previous case decisions. Intelligent systems assisting legal professionals in writing such documents provide great benefits but are challenging to design. Such systems need to help locate, summarize, and reason over salient precedents in order to be useful. To enable systems for such tasks, we work with legal professionals to transform a large open-source legal corpus into a dataset supporting two important backbone tasks: information retrieval (IR) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). This dataset CLERC (Case Law Evaluation Retrieval Corpus), is constructed for training and evaluating models on their ability to (1) find corresponding citations for a given piece of legal analysis and to (2) compile the text of these citations (as well as previous context) into a cogent analysis that supports a reasoning goal. We benchmark state-of-the-art models on CLERC, showing that current approaches still struggle: GPT-4o generates analyses with the highest ROUGE F-scores but hallucinates the most, while zero-shot IR models only achieve 48.3% recall@1000.
△ Less
Submitted 27 June, 2024; v1 submitted 24 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
Reframing Tax Law Entailment as Analogical Reasoning
Authors:
Xinrui Zou,
Ming Zhang,
Nathaniel Weir,
Benjamin Van Durme,
Nils Holzenberger
Abstract:
Statutory reasoning refers to the application of legislative provisions to a series of case facts described in natural language. We re-frame statutory reasoning as an analogy task, where each instance of the analogy task involves a combination of two instances of statutory reasoning. This increases the dataset size by two orders of magnitude, and introduces an element of interpretability. We show…
▽ More
Statutory reasoning refers to the application of legislative provisions to a series of case facts described in natural language. We re-frame statutory reasoning as an analogy task, where each instance of the analogy task involves a combination of two instances of statutory reasoning. This increases the dataset size by two orders of magnitude, and introduces an element of interpretability. We show that this task is roughly as difficult to Natural Language Processing models as the original task. Finally, we come back to statutory reasoning, solving it with a combination of a retrieval mechanism and analogy models, and showing some progress on prior comparable work.
△ Less
Submitted 12 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
BLT: Can Large Language Models Handle Basic Legal Text?
Authors:
Andrew Blair-Stanek,
Nils Holzenberger,
Benjamin Van Durme
Abstract:
We find that the best publicly available LLMs like GPT-4, Claude, and {PaLM 2} currently perform poorly at basic legal text handling. We introduce a benchmark consisting of tasks that lawyers and paralegals would expect LLMs to handle zero-shot, such as looking up the text at a line of a witness deposition or at a subsection of a contract. LLMs' poor performance on this benchmark casts into doubt…
▽ More
We find that the best publicly available LLMs like GPT-4, Claude, and {PaLM 2} currently perform poorly at basic legal text handling. We introduce a benchmark consisting of tasks that lawyers and paralegals would expect LLMs to handle zero-shot, such as looking up the text at a line of a witness deposition or at a subsection of a contract. LLMs' poor performance on this benchmark casts into doubt their reliability as-is for legal practice. However, fine-tuning for these tasks brings even a smaller model to near-perfect performance on our test set and also raises performance on a related legal task. These results suggest that many simple behaviors needed for a domain may not be present in foundational LLMs, without additional engagement from subject matter experts.
△ Less
Submitted 28 February, 2024; v1 submitted 16 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
OpenAI Cribbed Our Tax Example, But Can GPT-4 Really Do Tax?
Authors:
Andrew Blair-Stanek,
Nils Holzenberger,
Benjamin Van Durme
Abstract:
The authors explain where OpenAI got the tax law example in its livestream demonstration of GPT-4, why GPT-4 got the wrong answer, and how it fails to reliably calculate taxes.
The authors explain where OpenAI got the tax law example in its livestream demonstration of GPT-4, why GPT-4 got the wrong answer, and how it fails to reliably calculate taxes.
△ Less
Submitted 7 February, 2024; v1 submitted 15 September, 2023;
originally announced September 2023.
-
LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models
Authors:
Neel Guha,
Julian Nyarko,
Daniel E. Ho,
Christopher Ré,
Adam Chilton,
Aditya Narayana,
Alex Chohlas-Wood,
Austin Peters,
Brandon Waldon,
Daniel N. Rockmore,
Diego Zambrano,
Dmitry Talisman,
Enam Hoque,
Faiz Surani,
Frank Fagan,
Galit Sarfaty,
Gregory M. Dickinson,
Haggai Porat,
Jason Hegland,
Jessica Wu,
Joe Nudell,
Joel Niklaus,
John Nay,
Jonathan H. Choi,
Kevin Tobia
, et al. (15 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
The advent of large language models (LLMs) and their adoption by the legal community has given rise to the question: what types of legal reasoning can LLMs perform? To enable greater study of this question, we present LegalBench: a collaboratively constructed legal reasoning benchmark consisting of 162 tasks covering six different types of legal reasoning. LegalBench was built through an interdisc…
▽ More
The advent of large language models (LLMs) and their adoption by the legal community has given rise to the question: what types of legal reasoning can LLMs perform? To enable greater study of this question, we present LegalBench: a collaboratively constructed legal reasoning benchmark consisting of 162 tasks covering six different types of legal reasoning. LegalBench was built through an interdisciplinary process, in which we collected tasks designed and hand-crafted by legal professionals. Because these subject matter experts took a leading role in construction, tasks either measure legal reasoning capabilities that are practically useful, or measure reasoning skills that lawyers find interesting. To enable cross-disciplinary conversations about LLMs in the law, we additionally show how popular legal frameworks for describing legal reasoning -- which distinguish between its many forms -- correspond to LegalBench tasks, thus giving lawyers and LLM developers a common vocabulary. This paper describes LegalBench, presents an empirical evaluation of 20 open-source and commercial LLMs, and illustrates the types of research explorations LegalBench enables.
△ Less
Submitted 20 August, 2023;
originally announced August 2023.
-
Can GPT-3 Perform Statutory Reasoning?
Authors:
Andrew Blair-Stanek,
Nils Holzenberger,
Benjamin Van Durme
Abstract:
Statutory reasoning is the task of reasoning with facts and statutes, which are rules written in natural language by a legislature. It is a basic legal skill. In this paper we explore the capabilities of the most capable GPT-3 model, text-davinci-003, on an established statutory-reasoning dataset called SARA. We consider a variety of approaches, including dynamic few-shot prompting, chain-of-thoug…
▽ More
Statutory reasoning is the task of reasoning with facts and statutes, which are rules written in natural language by a legislature. It is a basic legal skill. In this paper we explore the capabilities of the most capable GPT-3 model, text-davinci-003, on an established statutory-reasoning dataset called SARA. We consider a variety of approaches, including dynamic few-shot prompting, chain-of-thought prompting, and zero-shot prompting. While we achieve results with GPT-3 that are better than the previous best published results, we also identify several types of clear errors it makes. We investigate why these errors happen. We discover that GPT-3 has imperfect prior knowledge of the actual U.S. statutes on which SARA is based. More importantly, we create simple synthetic statutes, which GPT-3 is guaranteed not to have seen during training. We find GPT-3 performs poorly at answering straightforward questions about these simple synthetic statutes.
△ Less
Submitted 10 May, 2023; v1 submitted 12 February, 2023;
originally announced February 2023.
-
Asking the Right Questions in Low Resource Template Extraction
Authors:
Nils Holzenberger,
Yunmo Chen,
Benjamin Van Durme
Abstract:
Information Extraction (IE) researchers are map** tasks to Question Answering (QA) in order to leverage existing large QA resources, and thereby improve data efficiency. Especially in template extraction (TE), map** an ontology to a set of questions can be more time-efficient than collecting labeled examples. We ask whether end users of TE systems can design these questions, and whether it is…
▽ More
Information Extraction (IE) researchers are map** tasks to Question Answering (QA) in order to leverage existing large QA resources, and thereby improve data efficiency. Especially in template extraction (TE), map** an ontology to a set of questions can be more time-efficient than collecting labeled examples. We ask whether end users of TE systems can design these questions, and whether it is beneficial to involve an NLP practitioner in the process. We compare questions to other ways of phrasing natural language prompts for TE. We propose a novel model to perform TE with prompts, and find it benefits from questions over other styles of prompts, and that they do not require an NLP background to author.
△ Less
Submitted 25 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
Factoring Statutory Reasoning as Language Understanding Challenges
Authors:
Nils Holzenberger,
Benjamin Van Durme
Abstract:
Statutory reasoning is the task of determining whether a legal statute, stated in natural language, applies to the text description of a case. Prior work introduced a resource that approached statutory reasoning as a monolithic textual entailment problem, with neural baselines performing nearly at-chance. To address this challenge, we decompose statutory reasoning into four types of language-under…
▽ More
Statutory reasoning is the task of determining whether a legal statute, stated in natural language, applies to the text description of a case. Prior work introduced a resource that approached statutory reasoning as a monolithic textual entailment problem, with neural baselines performing nearly at-chance. To address this challenge, we decompose statutory reasoning into four types of language-understanding challenge problems, through the introduction of concepts and structure found in Prolog programs. Augmenting an existing benchmark, we provide annotations for the four tasks, and baselines for three of them. Models for statutory reasoning are shown to benefit from the additional structure, improving on prior baselines. Further, the decomposition into subtasks facilitates finer-grained model diagnostics and clearer incremental progress.
△ Less
Submitted 17 May, 2021;
originally announced May 2021.
-
Human Schema Curation via Causal Association Rule Mining
Authors:
Noah Weber,
Anton Belyy,
Nils Holzenberger,
Rachel Rudinger,
Benjamin Van Durme
Abstract:
Event schemas are structured knowledge sources defining typical real-world scenarios (e.g., going to an airport). We present a framework for efficient human-in-the-loop construction of a schema library, based on a novel script induction system and a well-crafted interface that allows non-experts to "program" complex event structures. Associated with this work we release a schema library: a machine…
▽ More
Event schemas are structured knowledge sources defining typical real-world scenarios (e.g., going to an airport). We present a framework for efficient human-in-the-loop construction of a schema library, based on a novel script induction system and a well-crafted interface that allows non-experts to "program" complex event structures. Associated with this work we release a schema library: a machine readable resource of 232 detailed event schemas, each of which describe a distinct typical scenario in terms of its relevant sub-event structure (what happens in the scenario), participants (who plays a role in the scenario), fine-grained ty** of each participant, and the implied relational constraints between them. We make our schema library and the SchemaBlocks interface available online.
△ Less
Submitted 23 May, 2022; v1 submitted 18 April, 2021;
originally announced April 2021.
-
A Dataset for Statutory Reasoning in Tax Law Entailment and Question Answering
Authors:
Nils Holzenberger,
Andrew Blair-Stanek,
Benjamin Van Durme
Abstract:
Legislation can be viewed as a body of prescriptive rules expressed in natural language. The application of legislation to facts of a case we refer to as statutory reasoning, where those facts are also expressed in natural language. Computational statutory reasoning is distinct from most existing work in machine reading, in that much of the information needed for deciding a case is declared exactl…
▽ More
Legislation can be viewed as a body of prescriptive rules expressed in natural language. The application of legislation to facts of a case we refer to as statutory reasoning, where those facts are also expressed in natural language. Computational statutory reasoning is distinct from most existing work in machine reading, in that much of the information needed for deciding a case is declared exactly once (a law), while the information needed in much of machine reading tends to be learned through distributional language statistics. To investigate the performance of natural language understanding approaches on statutory reasoning, we introduce a dataset, together with a legal-domain text corpus. Straightforward application of machine reading models exhibits low out-of-the-box performance on our questions, whether or not they have been fine-tuned to the legal domain. We contrast this with a hand-constructed Prolog-based system, designed to fully solve the task. These experiments support a discussion of the challenges facing statutory reasoning moving forward, which we argue is an interesting real-world task that can motivate the development of models able to utilize prescriptive rules specified in natural language.
△ Less
Submitted 12 August, 2020; v1 submitted 11 May, 2020;
originally announced May 2020.
-
Multiview Representation Learning for a Union of Subspaces
Authors:
Nils Holzenberger,
Raman Arora
Abstract:
Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) is a popular technique for learning representations that are maximally correlated across multiple views in data. In this paper, we extend the CCA based framework for learning a multiview mixture model. We show that the proposed model and a set of simple heuristics yield improvements over standard CCA, as measured in terms of performance on downstream tasks. Our…
▽ More
Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) is a popular technique for learning representations that are maximally correlated across multiple views in data. In this paper, we extend the CCA based framework for learning a multiview mixture model. We show that the proposed model and a set of simple heuristics yield improvements over standard CCA, as measured in terms of performance on downstream tasks. Our experimental results show that our correlation-based objective meaningfully generalizes the CCA objective to a mixture of CCA models.
△ Less
Submitted 29 December, 2019;
originally announced December 2019.
-
Learning from Multiview Correlations in Open-Domain Videos
Authors:
Nils Holzenberger,
Shruti Palaskar,
Pranava Madhyastha,
Florian Metze,
Raman Arora
Abstract:
An increasing number of datasets contain multiple views, such as video, sound and automatic captions. A basic challenge in representation learning is how to leverage multiple views to learn better representations. This is further complicated by the existence of a latent alignment between views, such as between speech and its transcription, and by the multitude of choices for the learning objective…
▽ More
An increasing number of datasets contain multiple views, such as video, sound and automatic captions. A basic challenge in representation learning is how to leverage multiple views to learn better representations. This is further complicated by the existence of a latent alignment between views, such as between speech and its transcription, and by the multitude of choices for the learning objective. We explore an advanced, correlation-based representation learning method on a 4-way parallel, multimodal dataset, and assess the quality of the learned representations on retrieval-based tasks. We show that the proposed approach produces rich representations that capture most of the information shared across views. Our best models for speech and textual modalities achieve retrieval rates from 70.7% to 96.9% on open-domain, user-generated instructional videos. This shows it is possible to learn reliable representations across disparate, unaligned and noisy modalities, and encourages using the proposed approach on larger datasets.
△ Less
Submitted 1 March, 2019; v1 submitted 21 November, 2018;
originally announced November 2018.
