Multiclass Legal Judgment Outcome Prediction for

Consumer Lawsuits using XgBoost and Tpe

BY
METHUNSS
21MCS035
 INTRODUCTION
• Legal judgment prediction (LJP) aims to predict the judgment results according to the information
based on fact determination, which consists of the fact description, the basic information of
defendant, and the court view.

• Machine learning is programming computers to optimize a performance criterion using example

data or past experience . We have a model defined up to some parameters, and learning is the
execution of a computer program to optimize the parameters of the model using the training data
or past experience. 

• XGBoost is the implementation of the gradient descent decision tree structure used for
classification as well as regression problems.

• The main aim behind the development of XGBoost was to improve the speed and performance of
the training models.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
How Does NLP Benefit Legal System: A Summary of Legal Artificial Intelligence

Haoxi Zhong et.al., has proposed in this paper Legal Artificial Intelligence (Legal AI) focuses on applying the
technology of artificial intelligence, especially natural language processing, to benefit tasks in the legal domain. In
recent years, Legal AI has drawn increasing attention rapidly from both AI researchers and legal professionals, as
Legal AI is beneficial to the legal system for liberating legal professionals from a maze of paperwork. Legal
professionals often think about how to solve tasks from rule based and symbol-based methods, while NLP
researchers concentrate more on data-driven and embedding methods. In this paper, we describe the history, the
current state, and the future directions of research in Legal AI. We illustrate the tasks from the perspectives of
legal professionals and NLP researchers and show several representative applications in Legal AI. We conduct
experiments and provide an in-depth analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of existing works to explore
possible future directions.
 PROPOSED SYSTEM

• The proposed method for predicting the outcome of legal judgment is based on three steps,

• The first step is data acquisition.

• In the second, it performs the feature engineering over raw data.

• Finally, in the third step, training and classification are performed using XGBoost.
 EXISTING SYSTEM

• The Legal Reading Comprehension (LRC) framework for automatic judgment prediction to
predict the results of trials based on divorce cases, description of the facts, plaintiff’s appeal and
articles of the law.

• That framework is build using three techniques: a text encoder, a pair-wise attentive reader, and an
output module.

• Using neural networks, proposed a model to predict disputes related to employer/employee

employment in the civil construction area. The methodology consists of a category and binary
transformations of the data.
 MODULES

• Data acquisition.

• Feature Engineering.

• Classification and Optimization.

 ARCHITECTUR DIAGRAM

CLASSIFICATION
AND
OPTIMIZATION
FEATURED
ENGINEERING
DATA XGBOOST+
FEATURE
ACQUISITION STREAMING HYPEROPT
ENCODING

RAW
DATA OF
CUSTOMER’S RELATIVE TRAINING
LEGAL AND STOP WORDS FREQUENCY DATASET
GENERAL
INFORMATION

TEST
DATASET
GAIN BASED
FEATURE AGGREGATION
CREATION
 CONCLUSION

• This paper proposes a methodology using XGBoost for multiclass classification of lawsuits
outcome in the context of energy companies using general and legal customer’s features.

• This work also investigated the performance of using a Tree Structured Parcen Estimator for
optimization to find the best configuration for XGBoost.

• For future work, we plan to use over and under-sampling techniques to get around the imbalance
problems present in the data, due to the variation of occurrences between the multiple classes. We
also intend to work on more features related to the lawsuit’s legal context and other encoding
techniques.
 REFERENCES

• [1] H. Zhong, C. Xiao, C. Tu, T. Zhang, Z. Liu, and M. Sun, “How does nlp benefit legal system:
A summary of legal artificial intelligence,” 2020.

• [2] B. Alarie, A. Niblett, and A. H. Yoon, “How artificial intelligence will affect the practice of
law,” University of Toronto Law Journal, vol. 68, no. supplement 1, pp. 106–124, 2018.

• [3] H. Zhong, Z. Guo, C. Tu, C. Xiao, Z. Liu, and M. Sun, “Legal judgment prediction via
topological learning,” in Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural

Language Processing, 2018, pp. 3540–3549.

 CONT.,

• [4] P.-K. Do, H.-T. Nguyen, C.-X. Tran, M.-T. Nguyen, and M.-L. Nguyen, “Legal question
answering using ranking svm and deep convolutional neural network,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1703.05320, 2017

• [5] C. Cardellino, M. Teruel, L. A. Alemany, and S. Villata, “A low-cost, high-coverage legal named
entity recognizer, classifier and linker,” in Proceedings of the 16th edition of the International
Conference on Articial Intelligence and Law, 2017, pp. 9–18.

• [6] S. Long, C. Tu, Z. Liu, and M. Sun, “Automatic judgment prediction via legal reading
comprehension,” in China National Conference on Chinese Computational Linguistics. Springer,
2019, pp. 558–572.
 CONT.,

[7] A. Lage-Freitas, H. Allende-Cid, O. Santana, and L. de Oliveira-Lage, “Predicting brazilian court

decisions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10348, 2019.

[8] M. Medvedeva, M. Vols, and M. Wieling, “Using machine learning to predict decisions of the
european court of human rights,” Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 1–30, 2019.
THANK YOU