Legal experts disagree with rationale extraction techniques for explaining ECtHR case outcome classification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12419v1
• Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2026 14:03:17 GMT
• Title: Legal experts disagree with rationale extraction techniques for explaining ECtHR case outcome classification
• Authors: Mahammad Namazov, Tomáš Koref, Ivan Habernal,
• Abstract summary: Interpretability is critical for applications of large language models in the legal domain.<n>We propose a comparative analysis framework for model-agnostic interpretability techniques.<n>We show that the model's "reasons" for predicting a violation differ substantially from those of legal experts.
• Score: 9.334783986218232
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Interpretability is critical for applications of large language models in the legal domain which requires trust and transparency. While some studies develop task-specific approaches, other use the classification model's parameters to explain the decisions. However, which technique explains the legal outcome prediction best remains an open question. To address this challenge, we propose a comparative analysis framework for model-agnostic interpretability techniques. Among these, we employ two rationale extraction methods, which justify outcomes with human-interpretable and concise text fragments (i.e., rationales) from the given input text. We conduct comparison by evaluating faithfulness-via normalized sufficiency and comprehensiveness metrics along with plausibility-by asking legal experts to evaluate extracted rationales. We further assess the feasibility of LLM-as-a-Judge using legal expert evaluation results. We show that the model's "reasons" for predicting a violation differ substantially from those of legal experts, despite highly promising quantitative analysis results and reasonable downstream classification performance. The source code of our experiments is publicly available at https://github.com/trusthlt/IntEval.

Related papers

• Dissecting Judicial Reasoning in U.S. Copyright Damage Awards [0.21485350418225238]
  judicial reasoning in copyright damage awards poses a core challenge for computational legal analysis.<n>Federal courts follow the 1976 Copyright Act, their interpretations and factor weightings vary widely across jurisdictions.<n>This research introduces a novel discourse-based Large Language Model (LLM) methodology that integrates Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) with an agentic workflow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-14T13:09:16Z)
• GLARE: Agentic Reasoning for Legal Judgment Prediction [60.13483016810707]
  Legal judgment prediction (LJP) has become increasingly important in the legal field.<n>Existing large language models (LLMs) have significant problems of insufficient reasoning due to a lack of legal knowledge.<n>We introduce GLARE, an agentic legal reasoning framework that dynamically acquires key legal knowledge by invoking different modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T13:38:12Z)
• CLATTER: Comprehensive Entailment Reasoning for Hallucination Detection [60.98964268961243]
  We propose that guiding models to perform a systematic and comprehensive reasoning process allows models to execute much finer-grained and accurate entailment decisions.<n>We define a 3-step reasoning process, consisting of (i) claim decomposition, (ii) sub-claim attribution and entailment classification, and (iii) aggregated classification, showing that such guided reasoning indeed yields improved hallucination detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T17:02:52Z)
• When Fairness Isn't Statistical: The Limits of Machine Learning in Evaluating Legal Reasoning [4.096453902709292]
  Legal decisions are increasingly evaluated for fairness, consistency, and bias using machine learning (ML) techniques.<n>In high-stakes domains like refugee adjudication, such methods are often applied to detect disparities in outcomes.<n>Yet it remains unclear whether statistical methods can meaningfully assess fairness in legal contexts shaped by discretion, normative complexity, and limited ground truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T13:05:37Z)
• RLJP: Legal Judgment Prediction via First-Order Logic Rule-enhanced with Large Language Models [58.69183479148083]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is a pivotal task in legal AI.<n>Existing LJP models integrate judicial precedents and legal knowledge for high performance.<n>But they neglect legal reasoning logic, a critical component of legal judgments requiring rigorous logical analysis.<n>This paper proposes a rule-enhanced legal judgment prediction framework based on first-order logic (FOL) formalism and comparative learning (CL)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T14:50:21Z)
• 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)
• DiReCT: Diagnostic Reasoning for Clinical Notes via Large Language Models [32.85606857702375]
  We aim at evaluating the reasoning ability and interpretability of large language models (LLMs) compared to human doctors.<n>The diagnostic reasoning dataset for clinical notes (DiReCT) contains 511 clinical notes, each meticulously annotated by physicians.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-04T05:15:02Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Legal Judgment Reimagined: PredEx and the Rise of Intelligent AI Interpretation in Indian Courts [6.339932924789635]
  textbfPrediction with textbfExplanation (textttPredEx) is the largest expert-annotated dataset for legal judgment prediction and explanation in the Indian context. This corpus significantly enhances the training and evaluation of AI models in legal analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T14:57:48Z)
• Empowering Prior to Court Legal Analysis: A Transparent and Accessible Dataset for Defensive Statement Classification and Interpretation [5.646219481667151]
  This paper introduces a novel dataset tailored for classification of statements made during police interviews, prior to court proceedings. We introduce a fine-tuned DistilBERT model that achieves state-of-the-art performance in distinguishing truthful from deceptive statements. We also present an XAI interface that empowers both legal professionals and non-specialists to interact with and benefit from our system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-17T11:22:27Z)
• 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)
• Leveraging Large Language Models for Relevance Judgments in Legal Case Retrieval [16.29803062332164]
  We propose a few-shot approach where large language models assist in generating expert-aligned relevance judgments.<n>The proposed approach decomposes the judgment process into several stages, mimicking the workflow of human annotators.<n>It also ensures interpretable data labeling, providing transparency and clarity in the relevance assessment process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T09:46:56Z)
• 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)

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.