Fetching the paper…
Reading the bibliography…
The assessment of explainability in Legal Judgement Prediction (LJP) systems is of paramount importance in building trustworthy and transparent systems, particularly considering the reliance of these systems on factors that may lack legal relevance or involve sensitive attributes.
Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale
Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019 · 1911
Earlier work this paper cites.
A case-based system for trade secrets law
Edwina L Rissland and Kevin D Ashley. 1987 · 1987
Earlier work this paper cites.
Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples: Empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment
Vincent Aleven and Kevin D Ashley. 1997 · 1997
Earlier work this paper cites.
Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation
Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002 · 2002
Earlier work this paper cites.
Combining case-based and model-based reasoning for predicting the outcome of legal cases
Stefanie Brüninghaus and Kevin D Ashley. 2003 · 2003
Earlier work this paper cites.
Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries
Chin-Yew Lin. 2004 · 2004
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.
Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with high levels of correlation with human judgments
Abhaya Agarwal and Alon Lavie. 2007 · 2007
Earlier work this paper cites.
Sentence boundary detection: A long solved problem?
Jonathon Read, Rebecca Dridan, Stephan Oepen, and Lars Jørgen Solberg. 2012 · 2012
Earlier work this paper cites.
Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks
Matthew D Zeiler and Rob Fergus. 2014 · 2014
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.
Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals
Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2016 · 2016
Earlier work this paper cites.
Equality of opportunity in supervised learning
Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nati Srebro. 2016 · 2016
Earlier work this paper cites.
Understanding neural networks through representation erasure
Jiwei Li, Will Monroe, 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.
Predicting trade secret case outcomes using argument schemes and learned quantitative value effect tradeoffs
Matthias Grabmair. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
On calibration of modern neural networks
Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q Weinberger. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
A general approach for predicting the behavior of the supreme court of the united states
Daniel Martin Katz, Michael J Bommarito, and Josh Blackman. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
A predictive performance comparison of machine learning models for judicial cases
Zhenyu Liu and Huanhuan Chen. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
A unified approach to interpreting model predictions
Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
Learning to predict charges for criminal cases with legal basis
Bingfeng Luo, Yansong Feng, Jianbo Xu, Xiang Zhang, and Dongyan Zhao. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
Sentence boundary detection in adjudicatory decisions in the united states
Jaromir Savelka, Vern R Walker, Matthias Grabmair, and Kevin D Ashley. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
Predicting the law area and decisions of french supreme court cases
Octavia-Maria Şulea, Marcos Zampieri, Mihaela Vela, and Josef van Genabith. 2017b · 2017
Cited alongside, same era.
Axiomatic attribution for deep networks
Mukund Sundararajan, Ankur Taly, and Qiqi Yan. 2017 · 2017
Cited alongside, same era.
Predicting the outcome of appeal decisions in germany’s tax law
Bernhard Waltl, Georg Bonczek, Elena Scepankova, Jörg Landthaler, and Florian Matthes. 2017 · 2017
Cited alongside, same era.
Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment
Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2017 · 2017
Cited alongside, same era.
Predicting judicial decisions of criminal cases from thai supreme court using bi-directional gru with attention mechanism
Kankawin Kowsrihawat, Peerapon Vateekul, and Prachya Boonkwan. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing
Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2020 · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
Iteratively questioning and answering for interpretable legal judgment prediction
Haoxi Zhong, Yuzhong Wang, Cunchao Tu, Tianyang Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2020 · 2020
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.
Ildc for cjpe: Indian legal documents corpus for court judgment prediction and explanation
Vijit Malik, Rishabh Sanjay, Shubham Kumar Nigam, Kripabandhu Ghosh, Shouvik Kumar Guha, Arnab Bhattacharya, and Ashutosh Modi. 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
alphaXiv searches the wider corpus for related work and actual follow-ups.
alphaXiv is searching for related work…
Judicial decisions of the european court of human rights: Looking into the crystal ball
Masha Medvedeva, Michel Vols, and Martijn Wieling. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Anchors: High-precision model-agnostic explanations
Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Predicting decisions of the philippine supreme court using natural language processing and machine learning
Michael Benedict L Virtucio, Jeffrey A Aborot, John Kevin C Abonita, Roxanne S Avinante, Rother Jay B Copino, Michelle P Neverida, Vanesa O Osiana, Elmer C Peramo, Joanna G Syjuco, and Glenn Brian A Tan. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Fairness in decision-making—the causal explanation formula
Junzhe Zhang and Elias Bareinboim. 2018 · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Neural legal judgment prediction in english
Ilias Chalkidis, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Nikolaos Aletras. 2019 · 2019
Cited alongside, same era.
Deepset-open sourcing german bert
Branden Chan, Timo Möller, Malte Pietsch, Tanay Soni, and Chin Man Yeung. 2019 · 2019
Cited alongside, same era.
Improving supreme court forecasting using boosted decision trees
Aaron Russell Kaufman, Peter Kraft, and Maya Sen. 2019 · 2019
Cited alongside, same era.
Later among the works it cites.
Natural language processing in law: Prediction of outcomes in the higher courts of turkey
Emre Mumcuoğlu, Ceyhun E Öztürk, Haldun M Ozaktas, and Aykut Koç. 2021 · 2021
Later among the works it cites.
Swiss-judgment-prediction: A multilingual legal judgment prediction benchmark
Joel Niklaus, Ilias Chalkidis, and Matthias Stürmer. 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.
On the ethical limits of natural language processing on legal text
Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis and Nikolaos Aletras. 2021 · 2021
Later among the works it cites.
Equality before the law: Legal judgment consistency analysis for fairness
Yuzhong Wang, Chaojun Xiao, Shirong Ma, Haoxi Zhong, Cunchao Tu, Tianyang Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2021 · 2021
Later among the works it cites.
Neurjudge: a circumstance-aware neural framework for legal judgment prediction
Linan Yue, Qi Liu, Binbin Jin, Han Wu, Kai Zhang, Yanqing An, Mingyue Cheng, Biao Yin, and Dayong Wu. 2021 · 2021
Later among the works it cites.
Lexglue: A benchmark dataset for legal language understanding in english
Ilias Chalkidis, Abhik Jana, Dirk Hartung, Michael Bommarito, Ion Androutsopoulos, Daniel Katz, and Nikolaos Aletras. 2022b · 2022
Later among the works it cites.
Lsg attention: Extrapolation of pretrained transformers to long sequences
Charles Condevaux and Sébastien Harispe. 2022 · 2022
Later among the works it cites.
Legalrelectra: Mixed-domain language modeling for long-range legal text comprehension
Wenyue Hua, Yuchen Zhang, Zhe Chen, Josie Li, and Melanie Weber. 2022 · 2022
Later among the works it cites.
Predicting brazilian court decisions
André Lage-Freitas, Héctor Allende-Cid, Orivaldo Santana, and Lívia Oliveira-Lage. 2022 · 2022
Later among the works it cites.
Budgetlongformer: Can we cheaply pretrain a sota legal language model from scratch?
Joel Niklaus and Daniele Giofré. 2022 · 2022
Later among the works it cites.
An empirical study on cross-x transfer for legal judgment prediction
Joel Niklaus, Matthias Stürmer, and Ilias Chalkidis. 2022 · 2022
Later among the works it cites.
Deconfounding legal judgment prediction for European court of human rights cases towards better alignment with experts
T.y.s.s Santosh, Shanshan Xu, Oana Ichim, and Matthias Grabmair. 2022 · 2022
Later among the works it cites.
Gil Semo, Dor Bernsohn, Ben Hagag, Gila Hayat, and Joel Niklaus. 2022 · 2022
Later among the works it cites.
MultiLegalSBD: A Multilingual Legal Sentence Boundary Detection Dataset
Tobias Brugger, Matthias Stürmer, and Joel Niklaus. 2023 · 2023
Later among the works it cites.
SCALE: Scaling up the Complexity for Advanced Language Model Evaluation
Vishvaksenan Rasiah, Ronja Stern, Veton Matoshi, Matthias Stürmer, Ilias Chalkidis, Daniel E. Ho, and Joel Niklaus. 2023 · 2023
Later among the works it cites.
From dissonance to insights: Dissecting disagreements in rationale construction for case outcome classification
Shanshan Xu, Santosh T.y.s.s, Oana Ichim, Isabella Risini, Barbara Plank, and Matthias Grabmair. 2023 · 2023
Later among the works it cites.