Through the Lens of Split Vote: Exploring Disagreement, Difficulty and Calibration in Legal Case Outcome Classification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07214v3
• Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 10:53:50 GMT
• Title: Through the Lens of Split Vote: Exploring Disagreement, Difficulty and Calibration in Legal Case Outcome Classification
• Abstract summary: In legal decisions, split votes (SV) occur when judges cannot reach a unanimous decision. This paper explores split votes as naturally observable human disagreement and value pluralism. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic exploration of calibration to human judgements in legal NLP.
• Score: 21.56347984160413
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In legal decisions, split votes (SV) occur when judges cannot reach a unanimous decision, posing a difficulty for lawyers who must navigate diverse legal arguments and opinions. In high-stakes domains, understanding the alignment of perceived difficulty between humans and AI systems is crucial to build trust. However, existing NLP calibration methods focus on a classifier's awareness of predictive performance, measured against the human majority class, overlooking inherent human label variation (HLV). This paper explores split votes as naturally observable human disagreement and value pluralism. We collect judges' vote distributions from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and present SV-ECHR, a case outcome classification (COC) dataset with SV information. We build a taxonomy of disagreement with SV-specific subcategories. We further assess the alignment of perceived difficulty between models and humans, as well as confidence- and human-calibration of COC models. We observe limited alignment with the judge vote distribution. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic exploration of calibration to human judgements in legal NLP. Our study underscores the necessity for further research on measuring and enhancing model calibration considering HLV in legal decision tasks.

Related papers

• Assessing Cognitive Biases in LLMs for Judicial Decision Support: Virtuous Victim and Halo Effects [0.11603243575080534]
  We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) display human-like cognitive biases, focusing on potential implications for assistance in judicial sentencing.<n>Two of the most relevant biases were chosen: the virtuous victim effect (VVE), with emphasis given to its reduction when adjacent consent is present, and prestige-based halo effects (occupation, company, and credentials)<n>Our research discovers that there is larger VVE, there is no statistically significant penalty for adjacent-consent, and the halo effect is slightly reduced when compared to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-21T02:29:20Z)
• HLE-Verified: A Systematic Verification and Structured Revision of Humanity's Last Exam [63.84155758655084]
  Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models.<n>We introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy.<n>We evaluate seven state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T02:50:15Z)
• LLM-as-a-Judge: Rapid Evaluation of Legal Document Recommendation for Retrieval-Augmented Generation [40.06592175227558]
  This paper investigates a principled approach to evaluating Retrieval-Augmented Generation systems in legal contexts.<n>We find that traditional agreement metrics like Krippendorff's alpha can be misleading in the skewed distributions typical of AI system evaluations.<n>Our findings suggest a path toward scalable, cost-effective evaluation that maintains the precision demanded by legal applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T19:20:21Z)
• CompassJudger-2: Towards Generalist Judge Model via Verifiable Rewards [72.44810390478229]
  CompassJudger-2 is a novel generalist judge model that overcomes limitations via a task-driven, multi-domain data curation strategy.<n> CompassJudger-2 achieves superior results across multiple judge and reward benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-12T01:34:24Z)
• Quantitative LLM Judges [60.773734899532336]
  We propose quantitative LLM judges, which align evaluation scores of existing LLM judges to humans in a given domain.<n>The models are trained to improve the score of the original judge using its rationale and score.<n>Our experiments show that quantitative judges can improve the predictive power of existing judges through post-hoc modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:44:23Z)
• AI Debate Aids Assessment of Controversial Claims [86.47978525513236]
  We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial COVID-19 factuality claims.<n>In our human study, we find that debate-where two AI advisor systems present opposing evidence-based arguments-consistently improves judgment accuracy and confidence calibration.<n>In our AI judge study, we find that AI judges with human-like personas achieve even higher accuracy (78.5%) than human judges (70.1%) and default AI judges without personas (69.8%)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T19:01:53Z)
• JudgeRank: Leveraging Large Language Models for Reasoning-Intensive Reranking [81.88787401178378]
  We introduce JudgeRank, a novel agentic reranker that emulates human cognitive processes when assessing document relevance. We evaluate JudgeRank on the reasoning-intensive BRIGHT benchmark, demonstrating substantial performance improvements over first-stage retrieval methods. In addition, JudgeRank performs on par with fine-tuned state-of-the-art rerankers on the popular BEIR benchmark, validating its zero-shot generalization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T18:43:12Z)
• Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges [6.609843448260634]
  The LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models. This paper focuses on a clean scenario in which inter-human agreement is high. We identify vulnerabilities in judge models, such as their sensitivity to prompt complexity and length, and a tendency toward leniency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T13:49:54Z)
• Algorithmic Arbitrariness in Content Moderation [1.4849645397321183]
  We show how content moderation tools can arbitrarily classify samples as toxic. We discuss these findings in terms of human rights set out by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Our study underscores the need to identify and increase the transparency of arbitrariness in content moderation applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T19:27:00Z)
• From Dissonance to Insights: Dissecting Disagreements in Rationale Construction for Case Outcome Classification [21.56347984160413]
  Case Outcome Classification (COC) must be accurate and trustworthy. Case study reveals hitherto underappreciated complexities in creating benchmark datasets in legal NLP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T11:04:31Z)
• Compatibility of Fairness Metrics with EU Non-Discrimination Laws: Demographic Parity & Conditional Demographic Disparity [3.5607241839298878]
  Empirical evidence suggests that algorithmic decisions driven by Machine Learning (ML) techniques threaten to discriminate against legally protected groups or create new sources of unfairness. This work aims at assessing up to what point we can assure legal fairness through fairness metrics and under fairness constraints. Our experiments and analysis suggest that AI-assisted decision-making can be fair from a legal perspective depending on the case at hand and the legal justification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T09:38:05Z)
• Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators [60.27164804083752]
  We find that the quality ranking of candidate responses can be easily hacked by altering their order of appearance in the context. This manipulation allows us to skew the evaluation result, making one model appear considerably superior to the other. We propose a framework with three simple yet effective strategies to mitigate this issue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T07:41:03Z)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments [81.66697572357477]
  We propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using large language models (LLMs) We feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric. Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:19:14Z)
• Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment [56.935731584323996]
  Large language models (LLMs) claim that they can assist with relevance judgments. It is not clear whether automated judgments can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T13:08:38Z)
• Calibrating Predictions to Decisions: A Novel Approach to Multi-Class Calibration [118.26862029820447]
  We introduce a new notion -- emphdecision calibration -- that requires the predicted distribution and true distribution to be indistinguishable'' to a set of downstream decision-makers. Decision calibration improves decision-making on skin lesions and ImageNet classification with modern neural network.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T20:17:28Z)
• 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)
• Predicting Court Decisions for Alimony: Avoiding Extra-legal Factors in Decision made by Judges and Not Understandable AI Models [0.02578242050187029]
  We present an explainable AI model designed in this purpose by combining a classification with random forest and a regression model. By using a large amount of court decisions in matters of divorce produced by French jurisdictions, we seek to identify if there may be extra-legal factors in the decisions taken by the judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-09T14:14:20Z)

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.