Case Law Grounding: Using Precedents to Align Decision-Making for Humans and AI
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores how to align the judgments of humans and AI systems on socially-constructed concepts, using case law as a case study.
- The key idea is to use precedents from past legal rulings as a way to ground and calibrate AI decision-making to match human intuitions.
- The researchers conducted experiments to test how well large language models can learn to apply legal principles from case law, compared to human experts.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at the challenge of getting AI systems to make judgments that align with how humans would decide on complex, socially-constructed concepts. As an example, the researchers focus on the domain of case law grounding - how AI can learn to apply legal principles from past court rulings to new situations.
The core insight is that we can use these legal precedents as a way to calibrate and ground AI decision-making. By having the AI study how human experts have ruled on similar cases in the past, it can learn to make judgments that match human intuitions, even on nuanced and subjective concepts.
The researchers conducted experiments to test how well large language models, a type of advanced AI, can learn to apply legal principles from case law. They compared the AI's performance to that of human legal experts, to see how well the AI could align with human judgment.
Technical Explanation
The paper explores the challenge of aligning the judgments of humans and AI systems on socially-constructed concepts, using case law as a case study. The key idea is to use precedents from past legal rulings as a way to ground and calibrate AI decision-making to match human intuitions.
The researchers conducted experiments to test how well large language models (LLMs), a type of advanced AI, can learn to apply legal principles from case law. They compared the performance of the LLMs to that of human legal experts in making judgments on new legal cases.
The experiments involved training the LLMs on a corpus of legal cases and then evaluating their ability to classify new cases according to legal principles. The researchers found that the LLMs were generally able to learn and apply the relevant legal principles, though their performance was not always on par with human experts, especially on more nuanced and subjective concepts.
The paper provides insights into the strengths and limitations of using case law to align AI and human judgments, as well as the potential challenges of building judicial decision-making agents that can reliably match human intuitions.
Critical Analysis
The paper acknowledges several limitations and areas for further research. For example, the experiments were conducted on a relatively small dataset of legal cases, and the researchers note that the performance of the LLMs may not generalize to larger and more complex legal domains.
Additionally, the paper highlights the challenge of capturing the full complexity of human judgment on socially-constructed concepts, which can be highly contextual and subjective. While the use of legal precedents can help ground AI decision-making, the researchers suggest that additional approaches, such as incorporating human feedback and ethical considerations, may be necessary to fully align AI and human judgment.
Overall, the paper presents a novel approach to the challenge of AI alignment and offers insights into the potential and limitations of using case law as a way to ground AI decision-making. However, further research and experimentation will be needed to fully address the complexities of this problem.
Conclusion
This paper explores the challenge of aligning the judgments of humans and AI systems on socially-constructed concepts, using case law as a case study. The key idea is to use legal precedents as a way to ground and calibrate AI decision-making to match human intuitions.
The researchers conducted experiments to test how well large language models can learn to apply legal principles from case law, compared to human experts. The results suggest that this approach can be effective, but also highlight the challenges of capturing the full complexity of human judgment on nuanced and subjective concepts.
The insights from this paper have important implications for the development of AI systems that can reliably make decisions that align with human values and intuitions, especially in domains like the law where social and ethical considerations play a crucial role.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Case Law Grounding: Using Precedents to Align Decision-Making for Humans and AI
Quan Ze Chen, Amy X. Zhang
Communities and groups often need to make decisions based on social norms and preferences, such as when moderating content or building AI systems that reflect human values. The prevailing approach has been to first create high-level guidelines -- ``constitutions'' -- and then decide on new cases using the outlined criteria. However, social norms and preferences vary between groups, decision-makers can interpret guidelines inconsistently, and exceptional situations may be under-specified. In this work, we take inspiration from legal systems and introduce ``case law grounding'' (CLG), a novel workflow that uses past cases and decisions (textbf{precedents}) to help ground future decisions, for both human and LLM-based decision-makers. We evaluate CLG against a constitution-only approach on two tasks for both types of decision-makers, and find that decisions produced with CLG were more accurately aligned to observed ground truth in all cases, producing a 3.3--23.3 %-points improvement (across different tasks and groups) for humans and 9.2--30.0 %-points (across different tasks and groups) for LLM agents. We also discuss other aspects where a case-based approach could augment existing ``constitutional'' approaches when it comes to aligning human and AI decisions.
Read more9/9/2024
🔮
0
Incorporating Precedents for Legal Judgement Prediction on European Court of Human Rights Cases
T. Y. S. S. Santosh, Mohamed Hesham Elganayni, Stanis{l}aw S'ojka, Matthias Grabmair
Inspired by the legal doctrine of stare decisis, which leverages precedents (prior cases) for informed decision-making, we explore methods to integrate them into LJP models. To facilitate precedent retrieval, we train a retriever with a fine-grained relevance signal based on the overlap ratio of alleged articles between cases. We investigate two strategies to integrate precedents: direct incorporation at inference via label interpolation based on case proximity and during training via a precedent fusion module using a stacked-cross attention model. We employ joint training of the retriever and LJP models to address latent space divergence between them. Our experiments on LJP tasks from the ECHR jurisdiction reveal that integrating precedents during training coupled with joint training of the retriever and LJP model, outperforms models without precedents or with precedents incorporated only at inference, particularly benefiting sparser articles.
Read more9/30/2024
0
Legal Minds, Algorithmic Decisions: How LLMs Apply Constitutional Principles in Complex Scenarios
Camilla Bignotti, Carolina Camassa
In this paper, we conduct an empirical analysis of how large language models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, interpret constitutional principles in complex decision-making scenarios. We examine rulings from the Italian Constitutional Court on bioethics issues that involve trade-offs between competing values and compare model-generated legal arguments on these issues to those presented by the State, the Court, and the applicants. Our results indicate that GPT-4 consistently aligns more closely with progressive interpretations of the Constitution, often overlooking competing values and mirroring the applicants' views rather than the more conservative perspectives of the State or the Court's moderate positions. Our experiments reveal a distinct tendency of GPT-4 to favor progressive legal interpretations, underscoring the influence of underlying data biases. We thus underscore the importance of testing alignment in real-world scenarios and considering the implications of deploying LLMs in decision-making processes.
Read more8/12/2024
🔮
0
Towards Explainability in Legal Outcome Prediction Models
Josef Valvoda, Ryan Cotterell
Current legal outcome prediction models - a staple of legal NLP - do not explain their reasoning. However, to employ these models in the real world, human legal actors need to be able to understand the model's decisions. In the case of common law, legal practitioners reason towards the outcome of a case by referring to past case law, known as precedent. We contend that precedent is, therefore, a natural way of facilitating explainability for legal NLP models. In this paper, we contribute a novel method for identifying the precedent employed by legal outcome prediction models. Furthermore, by developing a taxonomy of legal precedent, we are able to compare human judges and neural models with respect to the different types of precedent they rely on. We find that while the models learn to predict outcomes reasonably well, their use of precedent is unlike that of human judges.
Read more4/17/2024