Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Automated Argument Generation from Legal Facts

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2310.05680 v3 pith:3BEUTLMN submitted 2023-10-09 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords legalcasesargumentsfactsnumberpendingprofessionalsacross
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

The count of pending cases has shown an exponential rise across nations (e.g., with more than 10 million pending cases in India alone). The main issue lies in the fact that the number of cases submitted to the law system is far greater than the available number of legal professionals present in a country. Given this worldwide context, the utilization of AI technology has gained paramount importance to enhance the efficiency and speed of legal procedures. In this study we partcularly focus on helping legal professionals in the process of analyzing a legal case. Our specific investigation delves into harnessing the generative capabilities of open-sourced large language models to create arguments derived from the facts present in legal cases. Experimental results show that the generated arguments from the best performing method have on average 63% overlap with the benchmark set gold standard annotations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Legal Document Summarization: Enhancing Judicial Efficiency through Automation Detection

    cs.CL 2025-07 reject novelty 1.0 of 10

    A legal document summarization framework is described, but the experiments use four non-legal summarization datasets and generic equations, so the claimed judicial efficiency improvements are not established.

Pith tools