The Craft of Selective Prediction: Towards Reliable Case Outcome Classification -- An Empirical Study on European Court of Human Rights Cases
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.18645v1
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:25:10 GMT
- Title: The Craft of Selective Prediction: Towards Reliable Case Outcome Classification -- An Empirical Study on European Court of Human Rights Cases
- Authors: T. Y. S. S. Santosh, Irtiza Chowdhury, Shanshan Xu, Matthias Grabmair,
- Abstract summary: This paper conducts an empirical investigation into how various design choices affect the reliability of COC models within the framework of selective prediction.
Our experiments on the multi-label COC task, focusing on European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) cases, highlight the importance of a diverse yet domain-specific pre-training corpus for better calibration.
- Score: 1.9570703832723582
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: In high-stakes decision-making tasks within legal NLP, such as Case Outcome Classification (COC), quantifying a model's predictive confidence is crucial. Confidence estimation enables humans to make more informed decisions, particularly when the model's certainty is low, or where the consequences of a mistake are significant. However, most existing COC works prioritize high task performance over model reliability. This paper conducts an empirical investigation into how various design choices including pre-training corpus, confidence estimator and fine-tuning loss affect the reliability of COC models within the framework of selective prediction. Our experiments on the multi-label COC task, focusing on European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) cases, highlight the importance of a diverse yet domain-specific pre-training corpus for better calibration. Additionally, we demonstrate that larger models tend to exhibit overconfidence, Monte Carlo dropout methods produce reliable confidence estimates, and confident error regularization effectively mitigates overconfidence. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic exploration of selective prediction in legal NLP. Our findings underscore the need for further research on enhancing confidence measurement and improving the trustworthiness of models in the legal domain.
Related papers
- Quantifying calibration error in modern neural networks through evidence based theory [0.0]
This paper introduces a novel framework for quantifying the trustworthiness of neural networks by incorporating subjective logic into the evaluation of Expected Error (ECE)
We demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach through experiments on MNIST and CIFAR-10 datasets where post-calibration results indicate improved trustworthiness.
The proposed framework offers a more interpretable and nuanced assessment of AI models, with potential applications in sensitive domains such as healthcare and autonomous systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-31T23:54:21Z) - ConU: Conformal Uncertainty in Large Language Models with Correctness Coverage Guarantees [68.33498595506941]
We introduce a novel uncertainty measure based on self-consistency theory.
We then develop a conformal uncertainty criterion by integrating the uncertainty condition aligned with correctness into the CP algorithm.
Empirical evaluations indicate that our uncertainty measure outperforms prior state-of-the-art methods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-29T17:33:07Z) - BayesJudge: Bayesian Kernel Language Modelling with Confidence Uncertainty in Legal Judgment Prediction [14.672477787408887]
We present a novel approach called BayesJudge that harnesses the synergy between deep learning and deep Gaussian Processes to quantify uncertainty.
Our method leverages informative priors and flexible data modelling via kernels, surpassing existing methods in both predictive accuracy and confidence estimation.
We also introduce an optimal solution to automate the scrutiny of unreliable predictions, resulting in a significant increase in the accuracy of the model's predictions by up to 27%.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-16T11:42:06Z) - Revisiting Confidence Estimation: Towards Reliable Failure Prediction [53.79160907725975]
We find a general, widely existing but actually-neglected phenomenon that most confidence estimation methods are harmful for detecting misclassification errors.
We propose to enlarge the confidence gap by finding flat minima, which yields state-of-the-art failure prediction performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-05T11:44:14Z) - Towards Calibrated Deep Clustering Network [60.71776081164377]
In deep clustering, the estimated confidence for a sample belonging to a particular cluster greatly exceeds its actual prediction accuracy.
We propose a novel dual-head (calibration head and clustering head) deep clustering model that can effectively calibrate the estimated confidence and the actual accuracy.
Extensive experiments demonstrate the proposed calibrated deep clustering model not only surpasses state-of-the-art deep clustering methods by 10 times in terms of expected calibration error but also significantly outperforms them in terms of clustering accuracy.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-04T11:23:40Z) - Multi-Perspective Consistency Enhances Confidence Estimation in Large
Language Models [27.63938857490995]
This work focuses on improving the confidence estimation of large language models.
Considering the fragility of self-awareness in language models, we introduce a Multi-Perspective Consistency (MPC) method.
The experimental results on eight publicly available datasets show that our MPC achieves state-of-the-art performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-17T13:37:39Z) - U-Trustworthy Models.Reliability, Competence, and Confidence in
Decision-Making [0.21756081703275998]
We present a precise mathematical definition of trustworthiness, termed $mathcalU$-trustworthiness.
Within the context of $mathcalU$-trustworthiness, we prove that properly-ranked models are inherently $mathcalU$-trustworthy.
We advocate for the adoption of the AUC metric as the preferred measure of trustworthiness.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-04T04:58:02Z) - Towards Calibrated Robust Fine-Tuning of Vision-Language Models [97.19901765814431]
This work proposes a robust fine-tuning method that improves both OOD accuracy and confidence calibration simultaneously in vision language models.
We show that both OOD classification and OOD calibration errors have a shared upper bound consisting of two terms of ID data.
Based on this insight, we design a novel framework that conducts fine-tuning with a constrained multimodal contrastive loss enforcing a larger smallest singular value.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-03T05:41:25Z) - Toward Reliable Human Pose Forecasting with Uncertainty [51.628234388046195]
We develop an open-source library for human pose forecasting, including multiple models, supporting several datasets.
We devise two types of uncertainty in the problem to increase performance and convey better trust.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-13T17:56:08Z) - Confidence-Calibrated Face and Kinship Verification [8.570969129199467]
We introduce an effective confidence measure that allows verification models to convert a similarity score into a confidence score for any given face pair.
We also propose a confidence-calibrated approach, termed Angular Scaling (ASC), which is easy to implement and can be readily applied to existing verification models.
To the best of our knowledge, our work presents the first comprehensive confidence-calibrated solution for modern face and kinship verification tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-25T10:43:46Z) - Reliability-Aware Prediction via Uncertainty Learning for Person Image
Retrieval [51.83967175585896]
UAL aims at providing reliability-aware predictions by considering data uncertainty and model uncertainty simultaneously.
Data uncertainty captures the noise" inherent in the sample, while model uncertainty depicts the model's confidence in the sample's prediction.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-24T17:53:20Z)
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.