Cited by 352Artificial Intelligence in LawTopic ModelingMachine Learning in Healthcare

Neural Legal Judgment Prediction in English

Open access
Chalkidis, Ilias, Androutsopoulos, Ion, Aletras, Nikolaos·2019·Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Abstract

Legal judgment prediction is the task of automatically predicting the outcome of a court case, given a text describing the case's facts.Previous work on using neural models for this task has focused on Chinese; only featurebased models (e.g., using bags of words and topics) have been considered in English.We release a new English legal judgment prediction dataset, containing cases from the European Court of Human Rights.We evaluate a broad variety of neural models on the new dataset, establishing strong baselines that surpass previous feature-based models in three tasks: (1) binary violation classification; (2) multi-label classification; (3) case importance prediction.We also explore if models are biased towards demographic information via data anonymization.As a side-product, we propose a hierarchical version of BERT, which bypasses BERT's length limitation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/p19-1424

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Training Transformers with longer sequences with FlashAttention improves performance on the MIMIC-III and ECtHR datasets.

    “Training Transformers with longer sequences with FlashAttention improves performance on the MIMIC-III [47] and ECtHR [6, 7] datasets.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Daniel Martin Katz. 2012. Quantitative legal prediction-or-how I learned to stop worrying and start preparing for the data-driven future of the le- gal services industry. Emory Law Journal, 62:909.
  2. Reed C Lawlor. 1963. What computers can do: Anal- ysis and prediction of judicial decisions. American Bar Association Journal, pages 337-344.
  3. Ramesh Nallapati and Christopher D. Manning. 2008. Legal docket classification: Where machine learn- ing stumbles. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing (EMNLP)), pages 438-446.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chalkidis, I., Androutsopoulos, I., & Aletras, N.
Affiliations
Athens University of Economics and Business (GR)
Venue
Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Published
2019
Pages
4317-4323
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2948586190
Cited by
352
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 1
FWCI
198.12
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Athens University of Economics and Business
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
legal judgment prediction, European Court of Human Rights, English legal texts, multi-label classification, demographic bias, data anonymization, neural language models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review