Team UTSA-NLP at SemEval 2024 Task 5: Prompt Ensembling for Argument Reasoning in Civil Procedures with GPT4
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper presents a novel approach for argument reasoning in civil procedures using an ensemble of language models and prompting techniques.
- The team, UTSA-NLP, participated in SemEval 2024 Task 5, which focused on this challenge.
- The proposed method leverages the capabilities of the latest language model, GPT-4, to generate and combine multiple prompts to improve performance on the task.
Plain English Explanation
The paper describes a system that aims to help understand and reason about arguments made in legal proceedings, such as civil court cases. The researchers developed a technique that uses a powerful language model called GPT-4 to generate and combine multiple "prompts" or instructions to the model.
Imagine you're trying to summarize a long and complex legal document. Instead of just asking the AI to read the document and provide a summary, the researchers found that giving the AI several different ways to approach the task (the "prompts") led to better, more nuanced summaries. By combining the insights from these different prompts, the system was able to more accurately capture the key reasoning and arguments in the legal material.
This is important because being able to understand the logic and justifications behind legal decisions can help legal professionals, policymakers, and the public better navigate the justice system. The researchers' approach aims to make this kind of sophisticated legal reasoning more accessible and interpretable using the latest advancements in language AI.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a "prompt ensembling" approach for argument reasoning in civil procedures. The key steps are:
-
Generating multiple prompts that instruct the GPT-4 language model to approach the task in different ways, such as summarizing the key points, identifying the reasoning behind a decision, or evaluating the strength of the arguments.
-
Running each prompt through GPT-4 and collecting the model's responses.
-
Combining the outputs from the different prompts using ensembling techniques to produce a final, more comprehensive analysis.
The prompts were designed to capture different aspects of the argument reasoning, leveraging GPT-4's ability to understand and reason about legal concepts. By aggregating the insights from these diverse prompts, the system was able to outperform approaches that relied on a single prompt.
The researchers evaluated their method on the SemEval 2024 Task 5 dataset, which focused on argument reasoning in civil law cases. Their prompt ensembling approach demonstrated strong performance compared to other participating teams.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a compelling demonstration of how advanced language models like GPT-4 can be effectively applied to legal reasoning tasks. The prompt ensembling technique is a creative way to harness the model's capabilities while accounting for the complex and nuanced nature of legal arguments.
One potential limitation is that the performance of the system is still dependent on the quality and coverage of the training data. If the dataset used in the SemEval task does not fully represent the diversity of real-world civil law cases, the model may struggle to generalize. Further research is needed to test the approach on a wider range of legal domains.
Additionally, while the paper focuses on the technical details of the system, it does not delve deeply into the ethical considerations of using AI for legal decision-making. As these technologies become more advanced and influential, it will be crucial to carefully examine issues of transparency, accountability, and potential biases.
Conclusion
The UTSA-NLP team's work on prompt ensembling for argument reasoning represents an important step forward in the application of large language models to legal tasks. By leveraging the versatility of GPT-4 and combining multiple prompts, the researchers were able to produce more nuanced and comprehensive analyses of legal arguments.
This research has the potential to enhance the accessibility and interpretability of legal reasoning, which could benefit a wide range of stakeholders, from legal professionals to policymakers and the general public. As the field of AI and law continues to evolve, this type of innovative approach will likely play an increasingly important role in shaping the future of the justice system.
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
Team UTSA-NLP at SemEval 2024 Task 5: Prompt Ensembling for Argument Reasoning in Civil Procedures with GPT4
Dan Schumacher, Anthony Rios
In this paper, we present our system for the SemEval Task 5, The Legal Argument Reasoning Task in Civil Procedure Challenge. Legal argument reasoning is an essential skill that all law students must master. Moreover, it is important to develop natural language processing solutions that can reason about a question given terse domain-specific contextual information. Our system explores a prompt-based solution using GPT4 to reason over legal arguments. We also evaluate an ensemble of prompting strategies, including chain-of-thought reasoning and in-context learning. Overall, our system results in a Macro F1 of .8095 on the validation dataset and .7315 (5th out of 21 teams) on the final test set. Code for this project is available at https://github.com/danschumac1/CivilPromptReasoningGPT4.
Read more4/3/2024
🤯
0
Archimedes-AUEB at SemEval-2024 Task 5: LLM explains Civil Procedure
Odysseas S. Chlapanis, Ion Androutsopoulos, Dimitrios Galanis
The SemEval task on Argument Reasoning in Civil Procedure is challenging in that it requires understanding legal concepts and inferring complex arguments. Currently, most Large Language Models (LLM) excelling in the legal realm are principally purposed for classification tasks, hence their reasoning rationale is subject to contention. The approach we advocate involves using a powerful teacher-LLM (ChatGPT) to extend the training dataset with explanations and generate synthetic data. The resulting data are then leveraged to fine-tune a small student-LLM. Contrary to previous work, our explanations are not directly derived from the teacher's internal knowledge. Instead they are grounded in authentic human analyses, therefore delivering a superior reasoning signal. Additionally, a new `mutation' method generates artificial data instances inspired from existing ones. We are publicly releasing the explanations as an extension to the original dataset, along with the synthetic dataset and the prompts that were used to generate both. Our system ranked 15th in the SemEval competition. It outperforms its own teacher and can produce explanations aligned with the original human analyses, as verified by legal experts.
Read more5/15/2024
0
eagerlearners at SemEval2024 Task 5: The Legal Argument Reasoning Task in Civil Procedure
Hoorieh Sabzevari, Mohammadmostafa Rostamkhani, Sauleh Eetemadi
This study investigates the performance of the zero-shot method in classifying data using three large language models, alongside two models with large input token sizes and the two pre-trained models on legal data. Our main dataset comes from the domain of U.S. civil procedure. It includes summaries of legal cases, specific questions, potential answers, and detailed explanations for why each solution is relevant, all sourced from a book aimed at law students. By comparing different methods, we aimed to understand how effectively they handle the complexities found in legal datasets. Our findings show how well the zero-shot method of large language models can understand complicated data. We achieved our highest F1 score of 64% in these experiments.
Read more6/26/2024
0
Experimenting with Legal AI Solutions: The Case of Question-Answering for Access to Justice
Jonathan Li, Rohan Bhambhoria, Samuel Dahan, Xiaodan Zhu
Generative AI models, such as the GPT and Llama series, have significant potential to assist laypeople in answering legal questions. However, little prior work focuses on the data sourcing, inference, and evaluation of these models in the context of laypersons. To this end, we propose a human-centric legal NLP pipeline, covering data sourcing, inference, and evaluation. We introduce and release a dataset, LegalQA, with real and specific legal questions spanning from employment law to criminal law, corresponding answers written by legal experts, and citations for each answer. We develop an automatic evaluation protocol for this dataset, then show that retrieval-augmented generation from only 850 citations in the train set can match or outperform internet-wide retrieval, despite containing 9 orders of magnitude less data. Finally, we propose future directions for open-sourced efforts, which fall behind closed-sourced models.
Read more9/14/2024