Skip to main content

A Comparison of Classification Methods Applied to Legal Text Data

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Progress in Artificial Intelligence (EPIA 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 12981))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The Brazilian judicial system is currently one of the largest in the world with more than 77 million legal cases awaiting decision. The use of machine learning could help to improve celerity through text classification. This paper aims to compare some supervised machine processing techniques. TF-IDF text representation was used. The paper discusses comparison among classification methods such as Random Forest, Adaboost using decision trees, Support Vector Machine, K-Nearest Neighbors, Naive Bayes and Multilayer Perceptron. The data set consists of 30,000 documents distributed among ten classes, which represent possible procedural movements resulting from court decisions. The classification results are quite satisfactory since some techniques were able to overcome a f1-score of 90%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dcada/machine-learning-text-law-portuguese/main/data_clear.csv.

  2. 2.

    https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dcada/machine-learning-text-law-portuguese/main/PreProcessing.ipynb.

  3. 3.

    https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dcada/machine-learning-text-law-portuguese/main/Processing.ipynb.

References

  1. Bertalan, V.G.F., Ruiz, E.E.S.: Predicting judicial outcomes in the Brazilian legal system using textual features. In: DHandNLP@ PROPOR, pp. 22–32 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bhatt, G.: The Haves and Have-nots (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bibal, A., et al.: Impact of legal requirements on explainability in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.05479 (2020)

  4. Breiman, L.: Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45(1), 5–32 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Calvo-Zaragoza, J., et al.: Improving kNN multi-label classification in prototype selection scenarios. Pattern Recogn. 48(5), 1608–1622 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chalkidis, I., et al.: Extreme multi-label legal text classification: a case study in EU legislation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10892 (2019)

  7. CNJ - National Council of Justice: SINAPSES (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  8. CNJ - National Council of Justice: Justiça em Números: ano-base 2019 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cortes, C., Vapnik, V.: Support-vector networks. Mach. Learn. 20(3), 273–297 (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Howe, J., et al.: Legal area classification: a comparative study of text classifiers on Singapore Supreme Court judgments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.06470 (2019)

  11. Jones, K.S.: A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. J. Documentation 60, 493–502 (1972)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lippi, M., et al.: CLAUDETTE: an automated detector of potentially unfair clauses in online terms of service. Artif. Intell. Law 27(2), 117–139 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Maia, M., Junquilho, T.: Projeto victor: Perspectivas de aplicação da inteligência artificial ao direito. Revista de Direitos e Garantias Fundamentais 19(3), 219–237 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fernandes de Mello, R., Antonelli Ponti, M.: A brief introduction on Kernels. In: Machine Learning, pp. 325–362. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94989-5_6

  15. Neill, J.O., et al.: Classifying sentential modality in legal language: a use case in financial regulations, acts and directives. In: Proceedings of the ICAIL, pp. 159–168 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Quinlan, J.R., et al.: Bagging, boosting, and c4.5. In: AAAI/IAAI, vol. 1, pp. 725–730 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rish, I., et al.: An empirical study of the naive Bayes classifier. In: IJCAI 2001 Workshop on Empirical Methods in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3, pp. 41–46 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Russel, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Srivastava, N., et al.: Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 15(1), 1929–1958 (2014)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Araújo, D.C., Lima, A., Lima, J.P., Costa, J.A. (2021). A Comparison of Classification Methods Applied to Legal Text Data. In: Marreiros, G., Melo, F.S., Lau, N., Lopes Cardoso, H., Reis, L.P. (eds) Progress in Artificial Intelligence. EPIA 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12981. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86230-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86230-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86229-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86230-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics