Header
Header
Article

A Computational Intelligence Model for Legal Prediction and Decision Support



. 2022 Jun 24;2022:5795189.


doi: 10.1155/2022/5795189.


eCollection 2022.

Affiliations

Item in Clipboard

Xuerui Shang.


Comput Intell Neurosci.


.

Abstract

Legal judgment prediction (LJP) and decision support aim to enable machines to predict the verdict of legal cases after reading the description of facts, which is an application of artificial intelligence in the legal field. This paper proposes a legal judgment prediction model based on process supervision for the sequential dependence of each subtask in the legal judgment prediction task. Experimental results verify the effectiveness of the model framework and process monitoring mechanism adopted in this model. First, the convolutional neural network (CNN) algorithm was used to extract text features, and the principal component analysis (PCA) algorithm was used to reduce the dimension of data features. Next, the prediction model based on process supervision is proposed for the first time. When modeling the dependency relationship between sequential sub-data sets, process supervision is introduced to ensure the accuracy of the obtained dependency information, and genetic algorithm (GA) is introduced to optimize the parameters so as to improve the final prediction performance. Compared to our benchmark method, our algorithm achieved the best results on four different legal open data sets (CAIL2018_Small, CAIL2018_Large, CAIL2019_Small, and CAIL2019_Large). The realization of automatic prediction of legal judgment can not only assist judges, lawyers, and other professionals to make more efficient legal judgment but also provide legal aid for people who lack legal expertise.

Conflict of interest statement

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Figures



Figure 1

The structure of CNN model.

References

    1. Kort F. Predicting Supreme court decisions mathematically: a quantitative analysis of the “right to counsel” cases. American Political Science Review . 1957;51(1):1–12. doi: 10.2307/1951767.



      DOI

    1. Nagel S. S. . Applying correlation analysis to case prediction. Tex.l.rev . 1964;42(7):1006–1017.

    1. Keown R. Mathematical models for legal prediction. Computer Journal . 1980;2(1):829–831.

    1. Segal J. A. Predicting Supreme court cases probabilistically: the search and seizure cases, 1962-1981. American Political Science Review . 1984;78(4):891–900. doi: 10.2307/1955796.



      DOI

    1. Lauderdale B. E., Clark T. S. The Supreme court’s many median justices. American Political Science Review . 2012;106(4):847–866. doi: 10.1017/s0003055412000469.



      DOI



Source link

Back to top button