The pursuit of model explainability has prompted the selective rationalization (aka, rationale extraction) which can identify important features (i.e., rationales) from the original input to support prediction results. Existing methods typically involve a cascaded approach with a selector responsible for extracting rationales from the input, followed by a predictor that makes predictions based on the selected rationales. However, these approaches often neglect the information contained in the non-rationales, underutilizing the input. Therefore, in our prior work, we introduce the Disentanglement-Augmented Rationale Extraction (DARE) method, which disentangles the input into rationale and non-rationale components, and enhances rationale representations by minimizing the mutual information between them. While DARE demonstrates strong performance in rationalization, it may still rely on shortcuts in the training distribution, leading to unfaithful rationales. To this end, in this paper, we propose Faith-DARE, an extension of DARE that aims to extract more reliable rationales by mitigating shortcut dependencies. Specifically, we treat the non-rationale features identified by DARE as environments that are decorrelated from the predictions. By shuffling and recombining these environments with rationales, we generate counterfactual samples and identify invariant rationales that remain predictive across shifted distributions. Extensive experiments on graph and textual datasets validate the effectiveness of Faith-DARE.

The remarkable success in neural networks provokes the selective rationalization. It explains the prediction results by identifying a small subset of the inputs sufficient to support them. Since existing methods still suffer from adopting the shortcuts in data to compose rationales and limited large-scale annotated rationales by human, in this paper, we propose a Shortcuts-fused Selective Rationalization (SSR) method, which boosts the rationalization by discovering and exploiting potential shortcuts. Specifically, SSR first designs a shortcuts discovery approach to detect several potential shortcuts. Then, by introducing the identified shortcuts, we propose two strategies to mitigate the problem of utilizing shortcuts to compose rationales. Finally, we develop two data augmentations methods to close the gap in the number of annotated rationales. Extensive experimental results on real-world datasets clearly validate the effectiveness of our proposed method.

With the development of legal intelligence, Criminal Court View Generation has attracted much attention as a crucial task of legal intelligence, which aims to generate concise and coherent texts that summarize case facts and provide explanations for verdicts. Existing researches explore the key information in case facts to yield the court views. Most of them employ a coarse-grained approach that partitions the facts into broad segments (e.g., verdict-related sentences) to make predictions. However, this approach fails to capture the complex details present in the case facts, such as various criminal elements and legal events. To this end, in this paper, we propose an Event Grounded Generation (EGG) method for criminal court view generation with cooperative (Large) Language Models, which introduces the fine-grained event information into the generation. Specifically, we first design a LLMs-based extraction method that can extract events in case facts without massive annotated events. Then, we incorporate the extracted events into court view generation by merging case facts and events. Besides, considering the computational burden posed by the use of LLMs in the extraction phase of EGG, we propose a LLMs-free EGG method that can eliminate the requirement for event extraction using LLMs in the inference phase. Extensive experimental results on a real-world dataset clearly validate the effectiveness of our proposed method.

Massive legal documents have promoted the application of legal intelligence. Among them, Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) has emerged as a critical task, garnering significant attention. LJP aims to predict judgment results for multiple subtasks, including charges, law articles, and terms of penalty. Existing studies primarily focus on utilizing the entire factual description to produce judgment results, overlooking the practical judicial scenario where judges consider various crime circumstances to decide verdicts and sentencing. To this end, in this paper, we propose a circumstance-aware LJP framework (i.e., NeurJudge) by exploring the circumstances of crime. Specifically, NeurJudge first separates the factual description into different circumstances with the predicted results of intermediate subtasks and then employs them to yield results of other subtasks. Besides, as confusing verdicts may degrade the performance of LJP, we further develop a variant of NeurJudge (NeurJudge+) that incorporates the semantics of labels (charges and law articles) into facts to yield more expressive and distinguishable fact representations. Finally, to provide explanations for LJP, we extend NeurJudge to an explainable LJP framework E-NeurJudge with a cooperative teacher-student system. The teacher system is NeurJudge which exploits legal particularities well but lacks explanation capability. The student system is a rationalization method that provides explainability but fails to utilize legal particularities. To combine the advantages of the above methods, we use a transferring function to transfer legal particularities from the teacher to the student, making a trade-off between yielding LJP results and rendering them explainable. Extensive experimental results on real-world datasets validate the effectiveness of our proposed frameworks.

Selective rationalizations improve the explainability of neural networks by selecting a subsequence of the input (i.e., rationales) to explain the prediction results.Although existing methods have achieved promising results, they still suffer from adopting the spurious correlations in data (aka., shortcuts) to compose rationales and make predictions.Inspired by the causal theory, in this paper, we develop an interventional rationalization (Inter-RAT) to discover the causal rationales.Specifically, we first analyse the causalities among the input, rationales and results with a causal graph.Then, we discover spurious correlations between the input and rationales, and between rationales and results, respectively, by identifying the confounder in the causalities.Next, based on the backdoor adjustment, we propose a causal intervention method to remove the spurious correlations between input and rationales.Further, we discuss reasons why spurious correlations between the selected rationales and results exist by analysing the limitations of the sparsity constraint in the rationalization, and employ the causal intervention method to remove these correlations.Extensive experimental results on three realworld datasets clearly validate the effectiveness of our proposed method.The source code of Inter-RAT is available at https://github. com/yuelinan/Codes-of-Inter-RAT.

Civil Case Judgment Prediction (CCJP) is a fundamental task in the legal intelligence of the civil law system, which aims to automatically predict the judgment results on each plea of the plaintiff. Existing studies mainly focus on making judgment predictions only on a certain civil cause (e.g., the divorce dispute) by utilizing the fact descriptions and pleas of the plaintiff, which still suffer from the various causes and complicated legal essential elements in the real court. Thus, in this paper, we formalize CCJP as a multi-task learning problem and propose a CCJP method centering on the trial mode of essential elements, CPEE, which explores the practical judicial process and analyzes comprehensive legal essential elements to make judgment predictions. Specifically, we first construct three tasks (i.e., the predictions on the civil causes, law articles, and the final judgment on each plea) necessary for CCJP, that follow the judgment process and exploit the results of intermediate subtasks to make judgment predictions. Then we design a logic-enhanced network to predict the results of three tasks and conduct a comprehensive study of civil cases. Finally, owing to the interlinked and dependent relationships among each task, we adopt the cause prediction result to help predict law articles and incorporate them into final judgment prediction through a gate mechanism. Furthermore, since the existing dataset fails to provide sufficient case information, we construct a real-world CCJP dataset that contains various causes and comprehensive legal elements. Extensive experimental results on the dataset validate the effectiveness of our method.

Rationale extraction can be considered as a straightforward method of improving the model explainability, where rationales are a subsequence of the original inputs, and can be extracted to support the prediction results. Existing methods are mainly cascaded with the selector which extracts the rationale tokens, and the predictor which makes the prediction based on selected tokens. Since previous works fail to fully exploit the original input, where the information of non-selected tokens is ignored, in this paper, we propose a Disentanglement-Augmented Rationale Extraction (DARE) method, which encapsulates more information from the input to extract rationales. Specifically, it first disentangles the input into the rationale representations and the non-rationale ones, and then learns more comprehensive rationale representations for extracting by minimizing the mutual information (MI) between the two disentangled representations. Besides, to improve the performance of MI minimization, we develop a new MI estimator by exploring existing MI estimation methods. Extensive experimental results on three real-world datasets and simulation studies clearly validate the effectiveness of our proposed method. Code is released at https://github.com/yuelinan/DARE.

Assessing the proficiency of trial lawyers in different legal fields is of significant importance since a qualified lawyer or lawyer team can strive for his clients' best rights while ensuring the fairness of litigations. However, proficiency assessment for lawyers is very challenging due to many technical and domain challenges, such as the lack of unified evaluation standards, and the complex interactions between lawyers and cases in real legal systems. To this end, we propose a novel proficiency assessment network for trial lawyers (LawyerPAN) to quantify lawyer proficiency through online litigation records. Specifically, we first leverage the theories in psychological measurement for mapping the proficiency of lawyers in each field into a unified real number space. Meanwhile, the characteristics of cases (i.e., case difficulty and discrimination) are well modeled to ensure fairness when assessing lawyers in different cases and fields. Then, we model the interactions between lawyers and cases from two perspectives: the anticipatory perspective aims to measure the personal proficiency of anticipated strategy, and the adversarial perspective seeks to depict the gap of lawyers' proficiency between both sides (i.e., plaintiffs and defendants). Finally, we conduct extensive experiments on real-world data, and the results show the effectiveness and interpretability of our approaches on assessing the proficiency of trial lawyers.

Legal Judgment Prediction is a fundamental task in legal intelligence of the civil law system, which aims to automatically predict the judgment results of multiple subtasks, such as charge, law article, and term of penalty prediction. Existing studies mainly focus on the impact of the entire fact description on all subtasks. They ignore the practical judicial scenario, where judges adopt circumstances of crime (i.e., various parts of the fact) to decide judgment results. To this end, in this paper, we propose a circumstance-aware legal judgment prediction framework (i.e., NeurJudge) by exploring circumstances of crime. Specifically, NeurJudge utilizes the results of intermediate subtasks to separate the fact description into different circumstances and exploits them to make the predictions of other subtasks. In addition, considering the popularity of confusing verdicts (i.e., charges and law articles), we further extend NeurJudge to a more comprehensive framework which is denoted by NeurJudge+. Particularly, NeurJudge+ utilizes a label embedding method to incorporate the semantics of labels (i.e., charges and law articles) into facts to generate more expressive fact representations for confusing verdicts problems. Extensive experimental results on two real-world datasets clearly validate the effectiveness of our proposed frameworks.

Criminal Court View Generation is an essential task in legal intelligence, which aims to automatically generate sentences interpreting judgment results. The court view could be seen as the summary of crime circumstances in a case, including ADjudging Circumstance (ADC) and SEntencing Circumstance (SEC). However, different circumstances vary widely, and adopting them to generate court views directly may limit the generation performance. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the ADC and SEC related sentences in case facts and enhance them into the court view generation, respectively. To this end, in this paper, we propose a novel Circumstances enhanced Criminal Court View Generation (C3VG) method, consisting of the extraction and generation stage. Specifically, in the extraction stage, we design a Circumstances Selector to select ADC and SEC related sentences. After that, we apply them to two generators to generate the circumstances enhanced court views, respectively. After merging the two types of court views, we could obtain the final court views. We evaluate C3VG by conducting extensive experiments on a real-world dataset and experimental results clearly validate the effectiveness of our proposed model.