U.S. health insurance is complex, and inadequate understanding and limited access to justice have dire implications for the most vulnerable. Advances in natural language processing present an opportunity to support efficient, case-specific understanding, and to improve access to justice and healthcare. Yet existing corpora lack context necessary for assessing even simple cases. We collect and release a corpus of reputable legal and medical text related to U.S. health insurance. We also introduce an outcome prediction task for health insurance appeals designed to support regulatory and patient self-help applications, and release a labeled benchmark for our task, and models trained on it.

While progress has been made in legal applications, law reasoning, crucial for fair adjudication, remains unexplored. We propose a transparent law reasoning schema enriched with hierarchical factum probandum, evidence, and implicit experience, enabling public scrutiny and preventing bias. Inspired by this schema, we introduce the challenging task, which takes a textual case description and outputs a hierarchical structure justifying the final decision. We also create the first crowd-sourced dataset for this task, enabling comprehensive evaluation. Simultaneously, we propose an agent framework that employs a comprehensive suite of legal analysis tools to address the challenge task. This benchmark paves the way for transparent and accountable AI-assisted law reasoning in the ``Intelligent Court''.

Legal cases require careful logical reasoning following the laws, whereas interactions with non- technical users must be in natural language. As an application combining logical reasoning using Prolog and natural language processing using large language models (LLMs), this paper presents a novel approach and system, LogicLease, to automate the analysis of landlord-tenant legal cases in the state of New York. LogicLease determines compliance with relevant legal requirements by analyzing case descriptions and citing all relevant laws. It leverages LLMs for information extraction and Prolog for legal reasoning. By separating information extraction from legal reasoning, LogicLease achieves greater transparency and control over the legal logic applied to each case. We evaluate the accuracy, efficiency, and robustness of LogicLease through a series of tests, achieving 100% accuracy and an average processing time of 2.57 seconds. LogicLease presents advantages over state-of-the-art LLM- based legal analysis systems by providing clear, step-by-step reasoning, citing specific laws, and distinguishing itself by its ability to avoid hallucinations - a common issue in LLMs.

Achieving consistency in immersive learning case descriptions is essential but challenging due to variations in research focus, methodology, and researchers' background. We address these challenges by leveraging the Immersive Learning Case Sheet (ILCS), a methodological instrument to standardize case descriptions, that we applied to an immersive learning case on ancient Greek technology in VRChat. Research team members had differing levels of familiarity with the ILCS and the case content, so we developed a custom ChatGPT assistant to facilitate consistent terminology and process alignment across the team. This paper constitutes an example of how structured case reports can be a novel contribution to immersive learning literature. Our findings demonstrate how the ILCS supports structured reflection and interpretation of the case. Further we report that the use of a ChatGPT assistant significantly sup-ports the coherence and quality of the team members development of the final ILCS. This exposes the potential of employing AI-driven tools to enhance collaboration and standardization of research practices in qualitative educational research. However, we also discuss the limitations and challenges, including reliance on AI for interpretive tasks and managing varied levels of expertise within the team. This study thus provides insights into the practical application of AI in standardizing immersive learning research processes.

Legal charge prediction, an essential task in legal AI, seeks to assign accurate charge labels to case descriptions, attracting significant recent interest. Existing methods primarily employ diverse neural network structures for modeling case descriptions directly, failing to effectively leverage multi-source external knowledge. We propose a prompt learning framework-based method that simultaneously leverages multi-source heterogeneous external knowledge from a legal knowledge base, a conversational LLM, and related legal articles. Specifically, we match knowledge snippets in case descriptions via the legal knowledge base and encapsulate them into the input through a hard prompt template. Additionally, we retrieve legal articles related to a given case description through contrastive learning, and then obtain factual elements within the case description through a conversational LLM. We fuse the embedding vectors of soft prompt tokens with the encoding vector of factual elements to achieve knowledge-enhanced model forward inference. Experimental results show that our method achieved state-of-the-art results on CAIL-2018, the largest legal charge prediction dataset, and our method has lower data dependency. Case studies also demonstrate our method's strong interpretability.

Traditionally in the domain of legal research, the retrieval of pertinent citations from intricate case descriptions has demanded manual effort and keyword-based search applications that mandate expertise in understanding legal jargon. Legal case descriptions hold pivotal information for legal professionals and researchers, necessitating more efficient and automated approaches. We propose a methodology that combines natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning techniques to enhance the organization and utilization of legal case descriptions. This approach revolves around the creation of textual embeddings with the help of state-of-art embedding models. Our methodology addresses two primary objectives: unsupervised clustering and supervised citation retrieval, both designed to automate the citation extraction process. Although the proposed methodology can be used for any dataset, we employed the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) dataset, yielding remarkable results. Our methodology achieved an impressive accuracy rate of 90.9%. By automating labor-intensive processes, we pave the way for a more efficient, time-saving, and accessible landscape in legal research, benefiting legal professionals, academics, and researchers.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on a wide range of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, often matching or even beating state-of-the-art task-specific models. This study aims at assessing the financial reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We leverage mock exam questions of the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) Program to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of ChatGPT and GPT-4 in financial analysis, considering Zero-Shot (ZS), Chain-of-Thought (CoT), and Few-Shot (FS) scenarios. We present an in-depth analysis of the models' performance and limitations, and estimate whether they would have a chance at passing the CFA exams. Finally, we outline insights into potential strategies and improvements to enhance the applicability of LLMs in finance. In this perspective, we hope this work paves the way for future studies to continue enhancing LLMs for financial reasoning through rigorous evaluation.

The research field of Legal Natural Language Processing (NLP) has been very active recently, with Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) becoming one of the most extensively studied tasks. To date, most publicly released LJP datasets originate from countries with civil law. In this work, we release, for the first time, a challenging LJP dataset focused on class action cases in the US. It is the first dataset in the common law system that focuses on the harder and more realistic task involving the complaints as input instead of the often used facts summary written by the court. Additionally, we study the difficulty of the task by collecting expert human predictions, showing that even human experts can only reach 53% accuracy on this dataset. Our Longformer model clearly outperforms the human baseline (63%), despite only considering the first 2,048 tokens. Furthermore, we perform a detailed error analysis and find that the Longformer model is significantly better calibrated than the human experts. Finally, we publicly release the dataset and the code used for the experiments.

Judgment prediction for legal cases has attracted much research efforts for its practice use, of which the ultimate goal is prison term prediction. While existing work merely predicts the total prison term, in reality a defendant is often charged with multiple crimes. In this paper, we argue that charge-based prison term prediction (CPTP) not only better fits realistic needs, but also makes the total prison term prediction more accurate and interpretable. We collect the first large-scale structured data for CPTP and evaluate several competitive baselines. Based on the observation that fine-grained feature selection is the key to achieving good performance, we propose the Deep Gating Network (DGN) for charge-specific feature selection and aggregation. Experiments show that DGN achieves the state-of-the-art performance.

Cognitive simulation of analogical processing can be used to answer comparison questions such as: What are the similarities and/or differences between A and B, for concepts A and B in a knowledge base (KB). Previous attempts to use a general-purpose analogical reasoner to answer such questions revealed three major problems: (a) the system presented too much information in the answer, and the salient similarity or difference was not highlighted; (b) analogical inference found some incorrect differences; and (c) some expected similarities were not found. The cause of these problems was primarily a lack of a well-curated KB and, and secondarily, algorithmic deficiencies. In this paper, relying on a well-curated biology KB, we present a specific implementation of comparison questions inspired by a general model of analogical reasoning. We present numerous examples of answers produced by the system and empirical data on answer quality to illustrate that we have addressed many of the problems of the previous system.