Zero Shot Transfer of Legal Judgement Prediction as Article-aware Entailment for the European Court of Human Rights

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.00609v2
• Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 12:16:25 GMT
• Title: Zero Shot Transfer of Legal Judgement Prediction as Article-aware Entailment for the European Court of Human Rights
• Authors: T.Y.S.S Santosh, Oana Ichim, Matthias Grabmair
• Abstract summary: We cast Legal Judgment Prediction from text on European Court of Human Rights cases as an entailment task. This configuration facilitates the model learning legal reasoning ability in mapping article text to specific fact text. We devise zero-shot LJP experiments and apply domain adaptation methods based on domain discriminator and Wasserstein distance.
• Score: 1.4072904523937537
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In this paper, we cast Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) from text on European Court of Human Rights cases as an entailment task, where the case outcome is classified from a combined input of case facts and convention articles. This configuration facilitates the model learning legal reasoning ability in mapping article text to specific fact text. It also provides the opportunity to evaluate the model's ability to generalize to zero-shot settings when asked to classify the case outcome with respect to articles not seen during training. We devise zero-shot LJP experiments and apply domain adaptation methods based on domain discriminator and Wasserstein distance. Our results demonstrate that the entailment architecture outperforms straightforward fact classification. We also find that domain adaptation methods improve zero-shot transfer performance, with article relatedness and encoder pre-training influencing the effect.

Related papers

• Query-driven Relevant Paragraph Extraction from Legal Judgments [1.2562034805037443]
  Legal professionals often grapple with navigating lengthy legal judgements to pinpoint information that directly address their queries. This paper focus on this task of extracting relevant paragraphs from legal judgements based on the query. We construct a specialized dataset for this task from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) using the case law guides.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-31T08:03:39Z)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• MUSER: A Multi-View Similar Case Retrieval Dataset [65.36779942237357]
  Similar case retrieval (SCR) is a representative legal AI application that plays a pivotal role in promoting judicial fairness. Existing SCR datasets only focus on the fact description section when judging the similarity between cases. We present M, a similar case retrieval dataset based on multi-view similarity measurement and comprehensive legal element with sentence-level legal element annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T08:17:11Z)
• Precedent-Enhanced Legal Judgment Prediction with LLM and Domain-Model Collaboration [52.57055162778548]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) has become an increasingly crucial task in Legal AI. Precedents are the previous legal cases with similar facts, which are the basis for the judgment of the subsequent case in national legal systems. Recent advances in deep learning have enabled a variety of techniques to be used to solve the LJP task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T16:47:20Z)
• Unlocking Practical Applications in Legal Domain: Evaluation of GPT for Zero-Shot Semantic Annotation of Legal Texts [0.0]
  We evaluate the capability of a state-of-the-art generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) model to perform semantic annotation of short text snippets. We found that the GPT model performs surprisingly well in zero-shot settings on diverse types of documents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-08T01:55:53Z)
• SAILER: Structure-aware Pre-trained Language Model for Legal Case Retrieval [75.05173891207214]
  Legal case retrieval plays a core role in the intelligent legal system. Most existing language models have difficulty understanding the long-distance dependencies between different structures. We propose a new Structure-Aware pre-traIned language model for LEgal case Retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-22T10:47:01Z)
• Leveraging task dependency and contrastive learning for Legal Judgement Prediction on the European Court of Human Rights [1.252149409594807]
  We report on an experiment in legal judgement prediction on European Court of Human Rights cases. Our models produce a small but consistent improvement in prediction performance over single-task and joint models without contrastive loss.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-01T21:38:47Z)
• Exploiting Contrastive Learning and Numerical Evidence for Confusing Legal Judgment Prediction [46.71918729837462]
  Given the fact description text of a legal case, legal judgment prediction aims to predict the case's charge, law article and penalty term. Previous studies fail to distinguish different classification errors with a standard cross-entropy classification loss. We propose a moco-based supervised contrastive learning to learn distinguishable representations. We further enhance the representation of the fact description with extracted crime amounts which are encoded by a pre-trained numeracy model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-15T15:53:56Z)
• Equality before the Law: Legal Judgment Consistency Analysis for Fairness [55.91612739713396]
  In this paper, we propose an evaluation metric for judgment inconsistency, Legal Inconsistency Coefficient (LInCo) We simulate judges from different groups with legal judgment prediction (LJP) models and measure the judicial inconsistency with the disagreement of the judgment results given by LJP models trained on different groups. We employ LInCo to explore the inconsistency in real cases and come to the following observations: (1) Both regional and gender inconsistency exist in the legal system, but gender inconsistency is much less than regional inconsistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-25T14:28:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.