Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Main Article Content

Abstract

Autonomous systems pose liability issues when automated decisions contribute to harm, failure, or non-compliance with regulations. Current legal AI studies primarily focus on classification, retrieval, question answering, and judicial prediction, and little has been done to translate legal and regulatory texts into structured signals that convey liability-relevant information. This research paper proposes a decision-support model for categorizing liability cues under European Union and Indian law. The source datasets were MultiEURLEX and IndicLegalQA, and a rule-based proxy mapping was developed to assign five labels: damage, defect, liability, regulation, and risk. This model is based on word-level and character-level TF-IDF, jurisdiction encoding, and a One-vs-Rest Linear Support Vector Machine classifier for multi-label classification. The final best configuration had an overall 91.33% subset accuracy, 96.08% Micro-F1, 87.81% Macro-F1, and 0.0201 Hamming Loss, compared to the best configurations of Logistic regression, Linear SVM, and Rand Forest. The framework aids initial legal and regulatory analysis and does not decide liability on doctrinal grounds or substitute for proficient legal analysis.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence Liability signals Autonomous systems Legal text classification Multi-label classification

Article Details

How to Cite
Srivastava, R. ., Fahim, S. ., Singh, G. ., Roy, K. ., Dubey, A. ., & Tiwari, R. . (2026). AI-driven liability assessment framework for autonomous systems integrating machine learning with EU and Indian regulatory models. Future Technology, 5(4), 25–33. Retrieved from https://fupubco.com/futech/article/view/1087
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Bookmark and Share

References

  1. I. Chalkidis, M. Fergadiotis, and I. Androutsopoulos, “MultiEURLEX: A multi-lingual and multi-label legal document classification dataset for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer,” in Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2021, pp. 6974–6996, doi: 10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.559.
  2. K. Veningston and A. Mishra, “Dataset for legal question answering system in the Indian judiciary context,” Data in Brief, vol. 60, Art. no. 111647, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2025.111647.
  3. I. Chalkidis, M. Fergadiotis, P. Malakasiotis, N. Aletras, and I. Androutsopoulos, “LEGAL-BERT: The muppets straight out of law school,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, 2020, pp. 2898–2904, doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.261.
  4. F. Ariai, J. Mackenzie, and G. Demartini, “Natural language processing for the legal domain: A survey of tasks, datasets, models, and challenges,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 1–37, 2025. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21306.
  5. N. Aletras, D. Tsarapatsanis, D. Preoţiuc-Pietro, and V. Lampos, “Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: A natural language processing perspective,” PeerJ Computer Science, vol. 2, Art. no. e93, 2016, doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.93.
  6. M. Medvedeva, M. Vols, and M. Wieling, “Using machine learning to predict decisions of the European Court of Human Rights,” Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 237–266, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10506-019-09255-y.
  7. H. Zhong, C. Xiao, C. Tu, T. Zhang, Z. Liu, and M. Sun, “How does NLP benefit the legal system: A summary of legal artificial intelligence,” in Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020, pp. 5218–5230, doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.466.
  8. T. Bench-Capon, K. Atkinson, and A. Wyner, “Using argumentation to structure e-participation in policy making,” in Transactions on Large-Scale Data- and Knowledge-Centered Systems XVIII, Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2015, pp. 1–29.
  9. D. Gunning, E. Vorm, J. Y. Wang, and M. Turek, “DARPA’s explainable AI (XAI) program: A retrospective,” Applied AI Letters, vol. 2, no. 4, Art. no. e61, 2021, doi: 10.1002/ail2.61.
  10. A. Madry, A. Makelov, L. Schmidt, D. Tsipras, and A. Vladu, “Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.06083.
  11. S. Chinchali, A. Sharma, J. Harrison, A. Elhafsi, D. Kang, E. Pergament, E. Cidon, S. Katti, and M. Pavone, “Network offloading policies for cloud robotics: A learning-based approach,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 997–1012, 2021. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05703.
  12. A. Theodorou and V. Dignum, “Towards ethical and socio-legal governance in AI,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 10–12, 2020, doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0136-y.
  13. S. Wachter, B. Mittelstadt, and C. Russell, “Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR,” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 841–887, 2017. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.00399.
  14. B. Botero Arcila, “AI liability in Europe: How does it complement risk regulation and deal with the problem of human oversight?,” Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 54, Art. no. 106012, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106012.
  15. A. Bertolini and F. Episcopo, “The expert group’s report on liability for artificial intelligence and other emerging digital technologies: A critical assessment,” European Journal of Risk Regulation, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 644–659, 2021, doi: 10.1017/err.2021.30.
  16. G. Noto La Diega and L. C. T. Bezerra, “Can there be responsible AI without AI liability? Incentivizing generative AI safety through ex-post tort liability under the EU AI liability directive,” International Journal of Law and Information Technology, vol. 32, no. 1, 2024.
  17. S. Chesterman, “Artificial intelligence and the limits of legal personality,” International & Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 819–844, 2020, doi: 10.1017/S0020589320000366.
  18. G. E. Marchant and R. A. Lindor, “The coming collision between autonomous vehicles and the liability system,” Santa Clara Law Review, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1321–1340, 2012. Available: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol52/iss4/6.
  19. M. L. Kubica, “Autonomous vehicles and liability law,” The American Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 70, suppl. 1, pp. i39–i69, 2022.
  20. European Commission, “Proposal for a directive on adapting non-contractual civil liability rules to artificial intelligence (AI Liability Directive),” COM(2022) 496 final, Brussels, Belgium, 2022. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52022PC0496.
  21. F. Doshi-Velez and B. Kim, “Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning,” arXiv:1702.08608, 2017. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08608.
  22. I. Chalkidis, M. Fergadiotis, and I. Androutsopoulos, “MultiEURLEX dataset,” Hugging Face Datasets, 2021. Available: https://huggingface.co/datasets/nlpaueb/multi_eurlex.
  23. K. Veningston and A. Mishra, “Indic legal question answering dataset,” Mendeley Data, V2, 2025. Available: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/gf8n8cnmvc/2.