mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Distinguish Confusion in Legal Judgment Prediction via Revised Relation Knowledge

arXiv 2408.09422 ↗First posted 18 Aug 2024cs.CL cs.AIcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) aims to automatically predict a law case's judgment results based on the text description of its facts. In practice, the confusing law articles (or charges) problem frequently occurs, reflecting that the law cases applicable to similar articles (or charges) tend to be misjudged. Although some recent works based on prior knowledge solve this issue well, they ignore that confusion also occurs between law articles with a high posterior semantic similarity due to the data imbalance problem instead of only between the prior highly similar ones, which is this work's further finding. This paper proposes an end-to-end model named textitD-LADAN to solve the above challenges. On the one hand, D-LADAN constructs a graph among law articles based on their text definition and proposes a graph distillation operation (GDO) to distinguish the ones with a high prior semantic similarity. On the other hand, D-LADAN presents a novel momentum-updated memory mechanism to dynamically sense the posterior similarity between law articles (or charges) and a weighted GDO to adaptively capture the distinctions for revising the inductive bias caused by the data imbalance problem. We perform extensive experiments to demonstrate that D-LADAN significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods in accuracy and robustness.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Aug 2024.

Builds on

25 of 57 references.

References · 25

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  3. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  4. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  5. 2016Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networkscited by 11,282
  6. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
  7. 2017Graph Attention Networkscited by 8,854
  8. 2017Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphscited by 6,284
  9. 2013Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionalitycited by 3,462
  10. 2017Neural Message Passing for Quantum Chemistrycited by 3,460
  11. 2014Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classificationcited by 1,124
  12. 2018Deeper Insights into Graph Convolutional Networks for Semi-Supervised Learningcited by 1,099
13 more
  1. 2021Understanding over-squashing and bottlenecks on graphs via curvaturecited by 471
  2. 2019PairNorm: Tackling Oversmoothing in GNNscited by 297
  3. 2018CAIL2018: A Large-Scale Legal Dataset for Judgment Predictioncited by 168
  4. 2018Robust Classification with Convolutional Prototype Learningcited by 122
  5. 2015Ask Me Anything: Dynamic Memory Networks for Natural Language Processingcited by 116
  6. 2021Lawformer: A Pre-trained Language Model for Chinese Legal Long Documentscited by 115
  7. 2020Distinguish Confusing Law Articles for Legal Judgment Predictioncited by 62
  8. 2017Learning to Predict Charges for Criminal Cases with Legal Basiscited by 61
  9. 2019Legal Judgment Prediction via Multi-Perspective Bi-Feedback Networkcited by 50
  10. 2017Exploring the Use of Text Classification in the Legal Domaincited by 31
  11. 2018Topic Memory Networks for Short Text Classificationcited by 25
  12. 2019MR-GNN: Multi-Resolution and Dual Graph Neural Network for Predicting Structured Entity Interactionscited by 24
  13. 2018Exploring the Semantic Content of Unsupervised Graph Embeddings: An Empirical Studycited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 2.

5 papers.