AI & ML interests
NLU
Recent Activity
Agreemind ⚖️
Legal AI for everyone.
We build open-source NLP models and tools that help people find and understand potentially risky clauses in Terms of Service (ToS) and similar consumer agreements.
Disclaimer: Agreemind provides informational assistance only and does not provide legal advice.
🎯 Mission
Legal documents are dense and time-consuming. Our goal is to make them more accessible by:
- highlighting clauses that commonly reduce user rights,
- labeling the type of risk (e.g., unilateral changes, arbitration),
- enabling downstream apps to display "risk badges" and evidence-backed highlights.
🧩 What our models do
Our models perform multi-label classification at the sentence/clause level:
- Input: a clause (sentence/paragraph)
- Output: probabilities over risk categories (one clause can match multiple)
This makes the models suitable for:
- clause highlighting in a document viewer,
- ranking "most risky" clauses first,
- powering a lightweight "risk badge" in a UI.
🏷️ Risk Categories (UNFAIR-ToS)
We currently support 8 types of potentially unfair clauses:
- Limitation of liability — Limits the provider's legal responsibility
- Unilateral termination — Provider may terminate/suspend without clear cause
- Unilateral change — Terms can change with minimal notice or constraints
- Content removal — Provider may remove user content at discretion
- Contract by using — Agreement is implied by browsing/using the service
- Choice of law — Specifies governing law (may disadvantage the user)
- Jurisdiction — Specifies dispute venue (may disadvantage the user)
- Arbitration — Requires arbitration instead of court
These categories are commonly used in the UNFAIR-ToS / CLAUDETTE research line.
📦 Model Zoo
All models are trained/evaluated on the LexGLUE UNFAIR-ToS benchmark (unfair-tos subset).
We report the same metric set across models whenever possible.
| Model | Task | Key metric(s) |
|---|---|---|
| deberta-unfair-tos-augmented | ToS clause risk classification | F1: 0.96 • Accuracy: 94.12% ⭐ |
| deberta-unfair-tos | ToS clause risk classification | F1: 0.87 • Accuracy: 78.8% |
| electra-large-unfair-tos | ToS clause risk classification | Accuracy: 77.3% |
| legalbert-unfair-tos | ToS clause risk classification | Accuracy: 74.9% |
| modernbert-unfair-tos | ToS clause risk classification | Accuracy: 70.6% |
| legalbert-large-unfair-tos | ToS clause risk classification | Accuracy: 66.3% |
Notes
- Accuracy = Exact Match (all 8 labels correct per sample)
- F1 = Micro-F1 across all labels
- For production use, we recommend tuning per-class thresholds on your domain.
- The augmented model was trained with 605 additional synthetic examples for weak classes.
🚀 Quickstart (Transformers)
from transformers import AutoTokenizer, AutoModelForSequenceClassification
import torch
model_id = "Agreemind/deberta-unfair-tos-augmented" # Best model
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_id)
model = AutoModelForSequenceClassification.from_pretrained(model_id)
labels = [
"Limitation of liability",
"Unilateral termination",
"Unilateral change",
"Content removal",
"Contract by using",
"Choice of law",
"Jurisdiction",
"Arbitration",
]
text = "We may modify these Terms at any time without notice."
inputs = tokenizer(text, return_tensors="pt", truncation=True, padding=True)
with torch.no_grad():
logits = model(**inputs).logits
probs = torch.sigmoid(logits).squeeze().tolist()
top = sorted(zip(labels, probs), key=lambda x: x[1], reverse=True)[:3]
print(top)
🔒 Responsible use
These models:
- may miss important risks,
- may produce false positives,
- should not be used as a substitute for legal counsel.
Always present outputs as informational signals, ideally with:
- the highlighted clause text,
- a short non-prescriptive explanation,
- a suggestion to review critical terms carefully.
🔗 Links
- 🌐 Website: https://agreemind.vercel.app
- 💻 GitHub: https://github.com/agree-mind
📄 License
Models and code are released under the MIT License, unless otherwise stated in individual repositories/models.