Fetching the paper…
Reading the bibliography…
This work demonstrates that Legal Judgement Prediction systems without expert-informed adjustments can be vulnerable to shallow, distracting surface signals that arise from corpus construction, case distribution, and confounding factors.
Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting
Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2014 · 1958
Earlier work this paper cites.
Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography
Kenneth Church and Patrick Hanks. 1990 · 1990
Earlier work this paper cites.
Generating legal arguments and predictions from case texts
Stefanie Brüninghaus and Kevin D Ashley. 2005 · 2005
Earlier work this paper cites.
Reasoning with rules and precedents: a computational model of legal analysis
L Karl Branting. 2013 · 2013
Earlier work this paper cites.
Generative adversarial nets
Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014 · 2014
Earlier work this paper cites.
Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks
Matthew D Zeiler and Rob Fergus. 2014 · 2014
Earlier work this paper cites.
On pixel-wise explanations for non-linear classifier decisions by layer-wise relevance propagation
Sebastian Bach, Alexander Binder, Grégoire Montavon, Frederick Klauschen, Klaus-Robert Müller, and Wojciech Samek. 2015 · 2015
Earlier work this paper cites.
Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation
Yaroslav Ganin and Victor Lempitsky. 2015 · 2015
Earlier work this paper cites.
Adam: A method for stochastic optimization
Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015 · 2015
Earlier work this paper cites.
Predicting judicial decisions of the european court of human rights: A natural language processing perspective
Nikolaos Aletras, Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis, Daniel Preoţiuc-Pietro, and Vasileios Lampos. 2016 · 2016
Earlier work this paper cites.
Visualizing and understanding neural models in nlp
Jiwei Li, Xinlei Chen, Eduard Hovy, and Dan Jurafsky. 2016 · 2016
Earlier work this paper cites.
" why should i trust you?" explaining the predictions of any classifier
Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016 · 2016
Earlier work this paper cites.
Hierarchical attention networks for document classification
Zichao Yang, Diyi Yang, Chris Dyer, Xiaodong He, Alex Smola, and Eduard Hovy. 2016 · 2016
Earlier work this paper cites.
Predicting trade secret case outcomes using argument schemes and learned quantitative value effect tradeoffs
Matthias Grabmair. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
Interactive visualization and manipulation of attention-based neural machine translation
Jaesong Lee, Joong-Hwi Shin, and Jun-Seok Kim. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
Axiomatic attribution for deep networks
Mukund Sundararajan, Ankur Taly, and Qiqi Yan. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
Punishing risk
Erin Collins. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Interpreting recurrent and attention-based neural models: a case study on natural language inference
Reza Ghaeini, Xiaoli Fern, and Prasad Tadepalli. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Backlash against international courts: explaining the forms and patterns of resistance to international courts
Mikael Rask Madsen, Pola Cebulak, and Micha Wiebusch. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Deconfounded lexicon induction for interpretable social science
Reid Pryzant, Kelly Shen, Dan Jurafsky, and Stefan Wagner. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Legal judgment prediction via topological learning
Haoxi Zhong, Zhipeng Guo, Cunchao Tu, Chaojun Xiao, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
If you give a judge a risk score: evidence from kentucky bail decisions
Shortcut learning in deep neural networks
Robert Geirhos, Jörn-Henrik Jacobsen, Claudio Michaelis, Richard Zemel, Wieland Brendel, Matthias Bethge, and Felix A Wichmann. 2020 · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
Walking back human rights in europe?
Laurence R Helfer and Erik Voeten. 2020 · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
Using machine learning to predict decisions of the european court of human rights
Masha Medvedeva, Michel Vols, and Martijn Wieling. 2020 · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
Adjusting for confounding with text matching
Margaret E Roberts, Brandon M Stewart, and Richard A Nielsen. 2020 · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
Distinguish confusing law articles for legal judgment prediction
Nuo Xu, Pinghui Wang, Long Chen, Li Pan, Xiaoyan Wang, and Junzhou Zhao. 2020 · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
Investigating the state-of-the-art performance and explainability of legal judgment prediction
alphaXiv searches the wider corpus for related work and actual follow-ups.
alphaXiv is searching for related work…
Alex Albright. 2019 · 2019
Cited alongside, same era.
Neural legal judgment prediction in English
Ilias Chalkidis, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Nikolaos Aletras. 2019 · 2019
Cited alongside, same era.
Legal cause prediction with inner descriptions and outer hierarchies
Zhiyuan Liu, Cunchao Tu, and Maosong Sun. 2019 · 2019
Cited alongside, same era.
Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference
Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019 · 2019
Cited alongside, same era.
Towards debiasing fact verification models
Tal Schuster, Darsh Shah, Yun Jie Serene Yeo, Daniel Roberto Filizzola Ortiz, Enrico Santus, and Regina Barzilay. 2019 · 2019
Cited alongside, same era.
Is attention interpretable?
Sofia Serrano and Noah A Smith. 2019 · 2019
Cited alongside, same era.
The elephant in the interpretability room: Why use attention as explanation when we have saliency methods?
Jasmijn Bastings and Katja Filippova. 2020 · 2020
Cited alongside, same era.
Rohan Bhambhoria, Samuel Dahan, and Xiaodan Zhu. 2021 · 2021
Later among the works it cites.
Scalable and explainable legal prediction
L Karl Branting, Craig Pfeifer, Bradford Brown, Lisa Ferro, John Aberdeen, Brandy Weiss, Mark Pfaff, and Bill Liao. 2021 · 2021
Later among the works it cites.
Paragraph-level rationale extraction through regularization: A case study on european court of human rights cases
Ilias Chalkidis, Manos Fergadiotis, Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis, Nikolaos Aletras, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Prodromos Malakasiotis. 2021 · 2021
Later among the works it cites.
What future for human rights? decision-making by algorithm
Veronika Fikfak. 2021 · 2021
Later among the works it cites.
Human rationales as attribution priors for explainable stance detection
Sahil Jayaram and Emily Allaway. 2021 · 2021
Later among the works it cites.
Legal judgment prediction with multi-stage case representation learning in the real court setting
Luyao Ma, Yating Zhang, Tianyi Wang, Xiaozhong Liu, Wei Ye, Changlong Sun, and Shikun Zhang. 2021 · 2021
Later among the works it cites.
Automatic judgement forecasting for pending applications of the european court of human rights
Masha Medvedeva, Ahmet Üstün, Xiao Xu, Michel Vols, and Martijn Wieling. 2021 · 2021
Later among the works it cites.
Using artificial intelligence to predict decisions of the turkish constitutional court
Mehmet Fatih Sert, Engin Yıldırım, and İrfan Haşlak. 2021 · 2021
Later among the works it cites.
Revisiting transformer-based models for long document classification
Xiang Dai, Ilias Chalkidis, Sune Darkner, and Desmond Elliott. 2022 · 2022
Closest in time.
Rethinking the field of automatic prediction of court decisions
Masha Medvedeva, Martijn Wieling, and Michel Vols. 2022 · 2022
Closest in time.
Domain-adversarial training of neural networks
Yaroslav Ganin, Evgeniya Ustinova, Hana Ajakan, Pascal Germain, Hugo Larochelle, François Laviolette, Mario Marchand, and Victor Lempitsky. 2016 · 2030
Closest in time.