Legal Syllogism Prompting: Teaching Large Language Models for Legal Judgment Prediction
Legal syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning commonly used by legal professionals to analyze cases. In this paper, we propose legal syllogism prompting (LoT), a simple prompting method to teach large language models (LLMs) for legal judgment prediction. LoT teaches only that in the legal syllogism the major premise is law, the minor premise is the fact, and the conclusion is judgment. Then the models can produce a syllogism reasoning of the case and give the judgment without any learning, fine-tuning, or examples. On CAIL2018, a Chinese criminal case dataset, we performed zero-shot judgment prediction experiments with GPT-3 models. Our results show that LLMs with LoT achieve better performance than the baseline and chain of thought prompting, the state-of-art prompting method on diverse reasoning tasks. LoT enables the model to concentrate on the key information relevant to the judgment and to correctly understand the legal meaning of acts, as compared to other methods. Our method enables LLMs to predict judgment along with law articles and justification, which significantly enhances the explainability of models.
Code (1)
Tasks
ArticlesMethods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
DISC-LawLLM: Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Intelligent Legal Services
We propose DISC-LawLLM, an intelligent legal system utilizing large language models (LLMs) to provide a wide range of legal services. We adopt legal syllogism prompting strategies to construct supervised fine-tuning data…
Language ModellingLarge Language ModelLegal ReasoningRetrievalLexChain: Modeling Legal Reasoning Chains for Chinese Tort Case Analysis
Legal reasoning is a fundamental component of legal analysis and decision-making. Existing computational approaches to legal reasoning predominantly rely on generic reasoning frameworks such as syllogism, which do not co…
Legal ReasoningBeyond Imperfect Alternatives with Rulemapping: A Neuro-Symbolic Case Study on Online Hate Speech
Automating legal reasoning forces a choice between imperfect alternatives: symbolic systems offer transparency but struggle with ambiguity, whereas neural systems handle natural language flexibly but lack verifiability. …
Legal ReasoningLegal Prompting: Teaching a Language Model to Think Like a Lawyer
Large language models that are capable of zero or few-shot prompting approaches have given rise to the new research area of prompt engineering. Recent advances showed that for example Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompts can i…
Common Sense ReasoningLanguage ModelingLanguage ModellingLegal Reasoning+1Exploring Reasoning Biases in Large Language Models Through Syllogism: Insights from the NeuBAROCO Dataset
This paper explores the question of how accurately current large language models can perform logical reasoning in natural language, with an emphasis on whether these models exhibit reasoning biases similar to humans. Spe…
Logical Reasoning