Discovering Explanatory Sentences in Legal Case Decisions Using Pre-trained Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Legal texts routinely use concepts that are difficult to understand. Lawyers elaborate on the meaning of such concepts by, among other things, carefully investigating how have they been used in past. Finding text snippets that mention a particular concept in a useful way is tedious, time-consuming, and, hence, expensive. We assembled a data set of 26,959 sentences, coming from legal case decisions, and labeled them in terms of their usefulness for explaining selected legal concepts. Using the dataset we study the effectiveness of transformer-based models pre-trained on large language corpora to detect which of the sentences are useful. In light of models' predictions, we analyze various linguistic properties of the explanatory sentences as well as their relationship to the legal concept that needs to be explained. We show that the transformer-based models are capable of learning surprisingly sophisticated features and outperform the prior approaches to the task.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Dec 2021.
Builds on
10 of 40 references.
References · 10
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2019A Multiscale Visualization of Attention in the Transformer Modelcited by 292
- 2020Pretrained Transformers for Text Ranking: BERT and Beyondcited by 266
- 2019Neural Legal Judgment Prediction in Englishcited by 208
- 2019Multi-Stage Document Ranking with BERTcited by 200
- 2019Simple Applications of BERT for Ad Hoc Document Retrievalcited by 34
- 2019Legal Area Classification: A Comparative Study of Text Classifiers on Singapore Supreme Court Judgmentscited by 12
- 2021Legal Search in Case Law and Statute Lawcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 7; 2024: 0; 2025: 2.
9 papers.
- 2023Can GPT-3 Perform Statutory Reasoning?cited by 71
- 2023Explaining Legal Concepts with Augmented Large Language Models (GPT-4)cited by 39
- 2023Can GPT-4 Support Analysis of Textual Data in Tasks Requiring Highly Specialized Domain Expertise?cited by 30
- 2023Bringing order into the realm of Transformer-based language models for artificial intelligence and lawcited by 13
- 2023Prototype-Based Interpretability for Legal Citation Predictioncited by 9
- 2023An Intent Taxonomy of Legal Case Retrievalcited by 6
- 2025Automating Legal Interpretation with LLMs: Retrieval, Generation, and Evaluationcited by 5
- 2023Can Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT) Pass Assessments in Higher Education Programming Courses?cited by 0
- 2025Are manual annotations necessary for statutory interpretations retrieval?cited by 0
- 2025Are manual annotations necessary for statutory interpretations retrieval?16 Jun 2025
- 2025Automating Legal Interpretation with LLMs: Retrieval, Generation, and Evaluation3 Jan 2025
- 2023Bringing order into the realm of Transformer-based language models for artificial intelligence and law10 Aug 2023
- 2023An Intent Taxonomy of Legal Case Retrieval25 Jul 2023
- 2023Can GPT-4 Support Analysis of Textual Data in Tasks Requiring Highly Specialized Domain Expertise?24 Jun 2023
- 2023Explaining Legal Concepts with Augmented Large Language Models (GPT-4)15 Jun 2023
- 2023Prototype-Based Interpretability for Legal Citation Prediction25 May 2023
- 2023Can Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT) Pass Assessments in Higher Education Programming Courses?16 Mar 2023
- 2023Can GPT-3 Perform Statutory Reasoning?13 Feb 2023