eyecite: A tool for parsing legal citations

Cushman, Jack; Dahl, Matthew; Lissner, Michael

doi:10.21105/joss.03617

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Алат Eyecite [4] омогућава аутоматско проналажење цитата прецедената у судским одлукама. Прилагођен је препознавању цитираних одлука у америчким пресудама.…”

Section: сродна истраживањаunclassified

Аутоматска Екстракција Информација Из Одлука Новозеландских Судова

Матковић

2022

Zbornik radova FTN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

U radu je izvršena ekstrakcija metapodataka novozelandskih sudskih odluka korišćenjem tehnika obrade prirodnog jezika. Predložene su metode mašinskog i dubokog učenja u cilju pronalaženja propisa relevantnih za donošenje odluka i izvršeno poređenje dobijenih rezultata. Pomoću ekstrahovanih referenci pronađeni su precedenti i dokumenti koji su posledica postupaka po pravnom leku na osnovu kojih su oformljene grupe povezanih dokumenata.

show abstract

Section: сродна истраживањаunclassified

Аутоматска Екстракција Информација Из Одлука Новозеландских Судова

Матковић

2022

Zbornik radova FTN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models

Dahl,

Magesh,

Suzgun

et al. 2024

Journal of Legal Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do large language models (LLMs) know the law? LLMs are increasingly being used to augment legal practice, education, and research, yet their revolutionary potential is threatened by the presence of “hallucinations”—textual output that is not consistent with legal facts. We present the first systematic evidence of these hallucinations in public-facing LLMs, documenting trends across jurisdictions, courts, time periods, and cases. Using OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4 and other public models, we show that LLMs hallucinate at least 58% of the time, struggle to predict their own hallucinations, and often uncritically accept users’ incorrect legal assumptions. We conclude by cautioning against the rapid and unsupervised integration of popular LLMs into legal tasks, and we develop a typology of legal hallucinations to guide future research in this area.

show abstract