odyhlapanis/mcm-civil-procedure

---
license: cc-by-nc-4.0
---
# Dataset Card for the Multiple-Choice Mutation Civil Procedure extension data
## Dataset Summary
The task was originally presented in the paper:

```plain
@InProceedings{Bongard.et.al.2022.NLLP,
title = {{The Legal Argument Reasoning Task in Civil Procedure}},
author = {Bongard, Leonard and Held, Lena and Habernal, Ivan},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing
Workshop 2022},
pages = {194--207},
year = {2022},
address = {Abu Dhabi, UAE},
publisher = {Association for Computational Linguistics}
}
```

To get the original data you must contact the authors as explained here: [instructions](https://github.com/trusthlt/legal-argument-reasoning-task#obtaining-the-dataset).
Additionally, the task was an official task in SemEval 2024 (see also: <https://github.com/trusthlt/semeval24/tree/main>).

According to the authors:

>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.

This dataset is an extension dataset with synthetic instances that are similar to the original ones. They were acquired using GPT3.5 prompts. For more details see our github page: <https://github.com/nlpaueb/mcm-civil-procedure/tree/main>.

## Examples (original data)

<details>
<summary><h3>Example 1</h3></summary>

<h4>Introduction</h4> My students always get confused about the relationship between removal to federal court and personal jurisdiction. Suppose that a defendant is sued in Arizona and believes that she is not subject to personal jurisdiction there. Naturally, she should object to personal jurisdiction. [...] But generally the scope of personal jurisdiction in the federal court will be the same as that of the state court, because the Federal Rules require the federal court in most cases to conform to state limits on personal jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). I’ve stumped a multitude of students on this point. Consider the following two cases to clarify the point.

<h4>Question</h4> 7. A switch in time. Yasuda, from Oregon, sues Boyle, from Idaho, on a state law unfair competition claim, seeking \$250,000 in damages. He sues in state court in Oregon. Ten days later (before an answer is due in state court), Boyle files a notice of removal in federal court. Five days after removing, Boyle answers the complaint, including in her answer an objection to personal jurisdiction. Boyle’s objection to personal jurisdiction is

<h4>Answer Candidate</h4> not waived by removal, but will be denied because the federal courts have power to exercise broader personal jurisdiction than the state courts.

<h4>Label</h4> 0

</details>
<details>
<summary><h3>Example 2</h3></summary>

<h4>Introduction</h4> My students always get confused about the relationship between removal to federal court and personal jurisdiction. Suppose that a defendant is sued in Arizona and believes that she is not subject to personal jurisdiction there. Naturally, she should object to personal jurisdiction. [...] But generally the scope of personal jurisdiction in the federal court will be the same as that of the state court, because the Federal Rules require the federal court in most cases to conform to state limits on personal jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). I’ve stumped a multitude of students on this point. Consider the following two cases to clarify the point.

<h4>Question</h4> 7. A switch in time. Yasuda, from Oregon, sues Boyle, from Idaho, on a state law unfair competition claim, seeking \$250,000 in damages. He sues in state court in Oregon. Ten days later (before an answer is due in state court), Boyle files a notice of removal in federal court. Five days after removing, Boyle answers the complaint, including in her answer an objection to personal jurisdiction. Boyle’s objection to personal jurisdiction is

<h4>Answer Candidate</h4> not waived by removal. The court should dismiss if there is no personal jurisdiction over Boyle in Oregon, even though the case was properly removed.

<h4>Label</h4> 1

</details>

## Details

### Indexing

The idx for the mutated examples is created as follows:
The prefix of 111 is used for all samples.
Then, the prefix for 00, 01, 10, 11 is added for each option (A, B, C, D respectively).
Then the id of the original sample is added.
For example idx 48 becomes:
111 00 48
111 01 48
111 10 48
111 11 48

原始信息汇总

数据集卡片：多选变异民事程序扩展数据

数据集概述

该数据集源自美国民事程序领域的一个新NLP任务和数据集。每个数据实例包括案件的总体介绍、特定问题、可能的解决方案论点以及对该论点为何适用于该案件的详细分析。由于该数据集基于一本面向法学生的书籍，因此被认为是一个真正复杂的任务，用于基准测试现代法律语言模型。

数据集扩展

该数据集是一个扩展数据集，包含与原始数据类似的合成实例。这些合成实例是通过GPT3.5提示生成的。

数据示例（原始数据）

示例1

• 介绍: 学生经常对联邦法院和州法院之间的管辖权关系感到困惑。假设被告在亚利桑那州被起诉，并认为她不受该州的个人管辖。她自然应该反对个人管辖权。[...] 但通常联邦法院的个人管辖权范围将与州法院相同，因为联邦规则要求联邦法院在大多数情况下符合州对个人管辖权的限制。
• 问题: Yasuda从俄勒冈州起诉Boyle从爱达荷州，指控其违反州法的不正当竞争，索赔25万美元。他在俄勒冈州法院起诉。十天后（在州法院答辩到期前），Boyle在联邦法院提交了移除通知。移除五天后，Boyle答辩，包括对个人管辖权的反对。Boyle对个人管辖权的反对
• 答案候选: 不会因移除而被放弃，但将被拒绝，因为联邦法院有权行使比州法院更广泛的管辖权。
• 标签: 0

示例2

• 介绍: 学生经常对联邦法院和州法院之间的管辖权关系感到困惑。假设被告在亚利桑那州被起诉，并认为她不受该州的个人管辖。她自然应该反对个人管辖权。[...] 但通常联邦法院的个人管辖权范围将与州法院相同，因为联邦规则要求联邦法院在大多数情况下符合州对个人管辖权的限制。
• 问题: Yasuda从俄勒冈州起诉Boyle从爱达荷州，指控其违反州法的不正当竞争，索赔25万美元。他在俄勒冈州法院起诉。十天后（在州法院答辩到期前），Boyle在联邦法院提交了移除通知。移除五天后，Boyle答辩，包括对个人管辖权的反对。Boyle对个人管辖权的反对
• 答案候选: 不会因移除而被放弃。如果俄勒冈州对Boyle没有个人管辖权，法院应驳回，即使案件已正确移除。
• 标签: 1

详细信息

索引

变异示例的索引创建如下：

• 所有样本使用前缀111。
• 然后，为每个选项（A, B, C, D分别）添加前缀00, 01, 10, 11。
• 然后添加原始样本的ID。 例如，索引48变为： 111 00 48 111 01 48 111 10 48 111 11 48