This paper summarizes Team SCaLAR's work on SemEval-2024 Task 5: Legal Argument Reasoning in Civil Procedure. To address this Binary Classification task, which was daunting due to the complexity of the Legal Texts involved, we propose a simple yet novel similarity and distance-based unsupervised approach to generate labels. Further, we explore the Multi-level fusion of Legal-Bert embeddings using ensemble features, including CNN, GRU, and LSTM. To address the lengthy nature of Legal explanation in the dataset, we introduce T5-based segment-wise summarization, which successfully retained crucial information, enhancing the model's performance. Our unsupervised system witnessed a 20-point increase in macro F1-score on the development set and a 10-point increase on the test set, which is promising given its uncomplicated architecture.

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.

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.

This paper presents our submission to the SemEval 2024 Task 5: The Legal Argument Reasoning Task in Civil Procedure. We present two approaches to solving the task of legal answer validation, given an introduction to the case, a question and an answer candidate. Firstly, we fine-tuned pre-trained BERT-based models and found that models trained on domain knowledge perform better. Secondly, we performed few-shot prompting on GPT models and found that reformulating the answer validation task to be a multiple-choice QA task remarkably improves the performance of the model. Our best submission is a BERT-based model that achieved the 7th place out of 20.

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.

We present a new NLP task and dataset from the domain of the U.S. civil procedure. Each instance of the dataset consists of a general introduction to the case, a particular question, and a possible solution argument, accompanied by a detailed analysis of why the argument applies in that case. Since the dataset is based on a book aimed at law students, we believe that it represents a truly complex task for benchmarking modern legal language models. Our baseline evaluation shows that fine-tuning a legal transformer provides some advantage over random baseline models, but our analysis reveals that the actual ability to infer legal arguments remains a challenging open research question.