Causal Artificial Intelligence in Legal Language Processing: A Systematic Review

被引:0
作者
Tritto, Philippe Prince [1 ]
Ponce, Hiram [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Panamericana, Fac Derecho, Augusto Rodin 498, Mexico City 03920, Mexico
[2] Univ Panamericana, Fac Ingn, Augusto Rodin 498, Mexico City 03920, Mexico
关键词
causal artificial intelligence; causal machine learning; legal language processing; legal AI; natural language processing; legal reasoning; systematic review; causal inference; machine learning; legal text analysis;
D O I
10.3390/e27040351
中图分类号
O4 [物理学];
学科分类号
0702 ;
摘要
Recent advances in legal language processing have highlighted limitations in correlation-based artificial intelligence approaches, prompting exploration of Causal Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques for improved legal reasoning. This systematic review examines the challenges, limitations, and potential impact of Causal AI in legal language processing compared to traditional correlation-based methods. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, we analyzed 47 papers from 2017 to 2024 across academic databases, private sector publications, and policy documents, evaluating their contributions through a rigorous scoring framework assessing Causal AI implementation, legal relevance, interpretation capabilities, and methodological quality. Our findings reveal that while Causal AI frameworks demonstrate superior capability in capturing legal reasoning compared to correlation-based methods, significant challenges remain in handling legal uncertainty, computational scalability, and potential algorithmic bias. The scarcity of comprehensive real-world implementations and overemphasis on transformer architectures without causal reasoning capabilities represent critical gaps in current research. Future development requires balanced integration of AI innovation with law's narrative functions, particularly focusing on scalable architectures for maintaining causal coherence while preserving interpretability in legal analysis.
引用
收藏
页数:43
相关论文
共 82 条
  • [1] Arsenyan V, 2023, Arxiv, DOI arXiv:2301.12473
  • [2] Ash E., 2022, More Laws, More Growth? Evidence from US States
  • [3] Balashankar A., 2022, Ph.D. Thesis
  • [4] Barale C., 2022, P 2 WORKSH BRIDG HUM, P28
  • [5] Systematic reviews in the social sciences. A practical guide.
    Beelmann, Andreas
    [J]. EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 2006, 11 (03) : 244 - 245
  • [6] Bommarito II MichaelJ., 2021, Research Handbook on Big Data Law
  • [7] One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?
    Braun, Virginia
    Clarke, Victoria
    [J]. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2021, 18 (03) : 328 - 352
  • [8] Cemri M, 2022, Arxiv, DOI arXiv:2209.00557
  • [9] Chalkidis I., 2022, arXiv
  • [10] Chen WQ, 2020, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2020 CONFERENCE ON EMPIRICAL METHODS IN NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING (EMNLP), P2213