Interpretable Low-Resource Legal Decision Making
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past several years, legal applications of deep learning have been on the rise. However, as with other high-stakes decision making areas, the requirement for interpretability is of crucial importance. Current models utilized by legal practitioners are more of the conventional machine learning type, wherein they are inherently interpretable, yet unable to harness the performance capabilities of data-driven deep learning models. In this work, we utilize deep learning models in the area of trademark law to shed light on the issue of likelihood of confusion between trademarks. Specifically, we introduce a model-agnostic interpretable intermediate layer, a technique which proves to be effective for legal documents. Furthermore, we utilize weakly supervised learning by means of a curriculum learning strategy, effectively demonstrating the improved performance of a deep learning model. This is in contrast to the conventional models which are only able to utilize the limited number of expensive manually-annotated samples by legal experts. Although the methods presented in this work tackles the task of risk of confusion for trademarks, it is straightforward to extend them to other fields of law, or more generally, to other similar high-stakes application scenarios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it