Most existing dialogue systems are user-driven, primarily designed to fulfill user requests. However, in many critical real-world scenarios, a conversational agent must proactively extract information to achieve its own objectives rather than merely respond. To address this gap, we introduce Inquisitive Conversational Agents (ICAs) and develop an ICA specifically tailored to U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments. We propose a Dual Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning framework featuring two cooperating RL agents, each with its own policy, to coordinate strategic dialogue management and fine-grained utterance generation. By learning when and how to ask probing questions, the agent emulates judicial questioning patterns and systematically uncovers crucial information to fulfill its legal objectives. Evaluations on a U.S. Supreme Court dataset show that our method outperforms various baselines across multiple metrics. It represents an important first step toward broader high-stakes, domain-specific applications.
Chatbots are robots that can communicate with humans using text or voice signals. Legal chatbots improve access to justice, since legal representation and legal advice by lawyers come with a high cost that excludes disadvantaged and vulnerable people. However, capturing the diversity of actual user input in datasets for deep-learning dialog systems (chatbots) is a technical challenge. Diversity requires large volumes of data, which must also be labelled in order to classify the user's intent, while the cost of labelling datasets increases with volume. Instead of labelling large volumes of authentic data from users, our approach consists in jointly generating large volumes of utterances and high-quality labels. The generator of labelled datasets is based on language resources that take the form of local grammar graphs (LGG), which capture and generalize the vocabulary and local syntax observed by linguists in text. The LGGs associate labels to the utterances according to a domain-specific classification system. We tested this approach by implementing LIGA, a legal chatbot in Korean. The chatbot answers users' conversational queries on legal situations by providing information on similar legal cases, made publicly available by the Korean government. We generated labelled utterances from the LGGs with the aid of the open-source Unitex platform. This process produced 700 million utterances. We trained a DIET classifier on a dataset made of these utterances, and the trained model reached 91% f1-score performance. We implemented a chatbot called LIGA, which uses the results of the model to select a link to a web page that documents similar legal cases.
Artificial Intelligence is increasingly applied to the field of law, and has the potential to increase access to justice. One particular movement that is gaining traction is that of agentic AI, wherein AI agents, based on Large Language Models (LLMs) can take autonomous actions. In particular, multi-agent approaches in the legal domain remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we investigate multi-agent deliberation methods for legal reasoning tasks using LLMs. We explore multi-agent deliberation (MAD) and introduce two novel multi-agent frameworks inspired by courtroom procedures and legal argumentation. Our experiments on both legal and non-legal benchmarks reveal that multi-agent frameworks achieve comparable overall performance to baseline large language models, but produce significantly distinct answers. Notably, these approaches can successfully solve cases that the baseline fails to address, and vice versa. We conduct a qualitative evaluation and highlight scenarios where multi-agent frameworks outperform monolithic approaches. For example, multi-agent approaches appear better suited for answering questions that require critical thinking from multiple perspectives. Our work positions multi-agent systems as a promising direction for AI in the legal domain, while demonstrating the potential of law-inspired multi-agent approaches for deliberation.
Humans naturally exhibit multiple forms of abstraction in reasoning and interaction, including temporal abstraction across decision timescales and strategic abstraction over communicative intents. Inspired by these complementary abstractions, we propose a two-level hierarchical reinforcement learning (HRL) framework for conversational agents that bridges the gap between existing token-level and utterance-level RL methods. Built upon a two-level Markov decision process (MDP), our framework conditions token-level response generation on utterance-level actions represented by explicit textual strategies. Based on theoretical analysis and efficiency considerations, we employ DQN to optimize the high-level Q-network and PPO to train the low-level actor-critic. To further alleviate reward sparsity and facilitate convergence, we introduce a dual-granularity reward mechanism that combines the utterance-level satisfaction score with token-level intrinsic self-consistency and a KL-divergence penalty. Experiments on both daily-life and emotional support conversations demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms a wide range of baselines in both strategy determination and response quality. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/AaronJi/ToSCA.