IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v10y2022i13p2281-d851610.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on a Decision Prediction Method Based on Causal Inference and a Multi-Expert FTOPJUDGE Mechanism

Author

Listed:
  • Qiang Zhao

    (School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Qingdao 266200, China)

  • Rundong Guo

    (School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Qingdao 266200, China)

  • Xiaowei Feng

    (School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Qingdao 266200, China)

  • Weifeng Hu

    (School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Qingdao 266200, China)

  • Siwen Zhao

    (School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Qingdao 266200, China)

  • Zihan Wang

    (School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Qingdao 266200, China)

  • Yujun Li

    (School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Qingdao 266200, China)

  • Yewen Cao

    (School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Qingdao 266200, China)

Abstract

Legal judgement prediction (LJP) is a crucial part of legal AI, and its goal is to predict the outcome of a case based on the information in the description of criminal facts. This paper proposes a decision prediction method based on causal inference and a multi-expert FTOPJUDGE mechanism. First, a causal inference algorithm was adopted to process unstructured text. This process did not require very much manual intervention to better mine the information in the text. Then, a neural network dedicated to each task was set up, and a neural network that simultaneously served multiple tasks was also set up. Finally, the pre-trained language model Lawformer was used to provide knowledge for downstream tasks. By using the public data set CAIL2018 and comparing it with current mainstream decision prediction models, it was shown that the model significantly improved the performance of downstream tasks and achieved great improvements in multiple indicators. Through ablation experiments, the effectiveness and rationality of each module of the proposed model were verified. The method proposed in this study achieved reasonably good performance in legal judgment prediction, which provides a promising solution for legal judgment prediction.

Suggested Citation

  • Qiang Zhao & Rundong Guo & Xiaowei Feng & Weifeng Hu & Siwen Zhao & Zihan Wang & Yujun Li & Yewen Cao, 2022. "Research on a Decision Prediction Method Based on Causal Inference and a Multi-Expert FTOPJUDGE Mechanism," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(13), pages 1-22, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:13:p:2281-:d:851610
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/13/2281/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/13/2281/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kongfan Zhu & Rundong Guo & Weifeng Hu & Zeqiang Li & Yujun Li, 2020. "Legal Judgment Prediction Based on Multiclass Information Fusion," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2020, pages 1-12, October.
    2. Segal, Jeffrey A., 1984. "Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962-1981," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 78(4), pages 891-900, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anthony Niblett & Richard A. Posner & Andrei Shleifer, 2010. "The Evolution of a Legal Rule," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(2), pages 325-358.
    2. Jeff Yates & Damon M. Cann & Brent D. Boyea, 2013. "Judicial Ideology and the Selection of Disputes for U.S. Supreme Court Adjudication," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 847-865, December.
    3. Jonathan P. Kastellec & Jeffrey R. Lax, 2008. "Case Selection and the Study of Judicial Politics," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 407-446, September.
    4. Niblett, Anthony, 2013. "Tracking inconsistent judicial behavior," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 9-20.
    5. JBrandon Duck-Mayr, 2022. "Explaining legal inconsistency," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 34(1), pages 107-126, January.
    6. Charles M. Cameron & Lewis A. Kornhauser, 2017. "Rational choice attitudinalism?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 535-554, June.
    7. Daniyal Alghazzawi & Omaimah Bamasag & Aiiad Albeshri & Iqra Sana & Hayat Ullah & Muhammad Zubair Asghar, 2022. "Efficient Prediction of Court Judgments Using an LSTM+CNN Neural Network Model with an Optimal Feature Set," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-30, February.
    8. Greg Goelzhauser, 2024. "Constitutional accountability for police shootings," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 92-108, March.
    9. Jonathan P. Kastellec, 2010. "The Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions and Legal Rules with Classification Trees," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 202-230, June.
    10. David Gliksberg, 2014. "Does the Law Matter? Win Rates and Law Reforms," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 378-407, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:13:p:2281-:d:851610. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.