Leveraging task dependency and contrastive learning for Legal Judgement Prediction on the European Court of Human Rights

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.00768v2
• Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 12:19:26 GMT
• Title: Leveraging task dependency and contrastive learning for Legal Judgement Prediction on the European Court of Human Rights
• Authors: T.Y.S.S Santosh, Marcel Perez San Blas, Phillip Kemper, Matthias Grabmair
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 1.252149409594807
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We report on an experiment in legal judgement prediction on European Court of Human Rights cases where our model first learns to predict the convention articles allegedly violated by the state from case facts descriptions, and subsequently utilizes that information to predict a finding of a violation by the court. We assess the dependency between these two tasks at the feature and outcome level. Furthermore, we leverage a hierarchical contrastive loss to pull together article specific representations of cases at the higher level level, leading to distinctive article clusters, and further pulls the cases in each article cluster based on their outcome leading to sub-clusters of cases with similar outcomes. Our experiment results demonstrate that, given a static pre-trained encoder, our models produce a small but consistent improvement in prediction performance over single-task and joint models without contrastive loss.

Related papers

• Fact-based Court Judgment Prediction [0.5439020425819]
  This extended abstract focuses on fact-based judgment prediction within the context of Indian legal documents. We introduce two distinct problem variations: one based solely on facts, and another combining facts with rulings from lower courts (RLC) Our research aims to enhance early-phase case outcome prediction, offering significant benefits to legal professionals and the general public.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-22T12:39:28Z)
• Inducing Causal Structure for Abstractive Text Summarization [76.1000380429553]
  We introduce a Structural Causal Model (SCM) to induce the underlying causal structure of the summarization data. We propose a Causality Inspired Sequence-to-Sequence model (CI-Seq2Seq) to learn the causal representations that can mimic the causal factors. Experimental results on two widely used text summarization datasets demonstrate the advantages of our approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-24T16:06:36Z)
• Zero Shot Transfer of Legal Judgement Prediction as Article-aware Entailment for the European Court of Human Rights [1.4072904523937537]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-01T17:20:52Z)
• 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)
• Deconfounding Legal Judgment Prediction for European Court of Human Rights Cases Towards Better Alignment with Experts [1.252149409594807]
  This work demonstrates that Legal Judgement Prediction systems without expert-informed adjustments can be vulnerable to shallow, distracting surface signals. To mitigate this, we use domain expertise to strategically identify statistically predictive but legally irrelevant information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-25T08:37:25Z)
• Conditional Supervised Contrastive Learning for Fair Text Classification [59.813422435604025]
  We study learning fair representations that satisfy a notion of fairness known as equalized odds for text classification via contrastive learning. Specifically, we first theoretically analyze the connections between learning representations with a fairness constraint and conditional supervised contrastive objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T17:38:30Z)
• Measuring Fairness of Text Classifiers via Prediction Sensitivity [63.56554964580627]
  ACCUMULATED PREDICTION SENSITIVITY measures fairness in machine learning models based on the model's prediction sensitivity to perturbations in input features. We show that the metric can be theoretically linked with a specific notion of group fairness (statistical parity) and individual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-16T15:00:33Z)
• 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)
• On the Fairness of Causal Algorithmic Recourse [36.519629650529666]
  We propose two new fairness criteria at the group and individual level. We show that fairness of recourse is complementary to fairness of prediction. We discuss whether fairness violations in the data generating process revealed by our criteria may be better addressed by societal interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-13T16:35:06Z)
• Sampling Attacks: Amplification of Membership Inference Attacks by Repeated Queries [74.59376038272661]
  We introduce sampling attack, a novel membership inference technique that unlike other standard membership adversaries is able to work under severe restriction of no access to scores of the victim model. We show that a victim model that only publishes the labels is still susceptible to sampling attacks and the adversary can recover up to 100% of its performance. For defense, we choose differential privacy in the form of gradient perturbation during the training of the victim model as well as output perturbation at prediction time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-01T12:54:54Z)

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.