REVIEW 1 cited by
Towards Supporting Legal Argumentation with NLP: Is More Data Really All You Need?
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
read the original abstract
Modeling legal reasoning and argumentation justifying decisions in cases has always been central to AI & Law, yet contemporary developments in legal NLP have increasingly focused on statistically classifying legal conclusions from text. While conceptually simpler, these approaches often fall short in providing usable justifications connecting to appropriate legal concepts. This paper reviews both traditional symbolic works in AI & Law and recent advances in legal NLP, and distills possibilities of integrating expert-informed knowledge to strike a balance between scalability and explanation in symbolic vs. data-driven approaches. We identify open challenges and discuss the potential of modern NLP models and methods that integrate
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
LLMs for Legal Subsumption in German Employment Contracts
LLMs reach 80% weighted F1 on German employment contract clause review when given lawyer-distilled examination guidelines, but lag human lawyers when reading full legal sources.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.