Related papers: Equality before the Law: Legal Judgment Consistenc…
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in high-stakes fields where their decisions impact rights and equity. However, LLMs' judicial fairness and implications for social justice remain underexplored. When LLMs act as judges, the…
Given the fact description text of a legal case, legal judgment prediction (LJP) aims to predict the case's charge, law article and penalty term. A core problem of LJP is how to distinguish confusing legal cases, where only subtle text…
Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate responses with inherent biases, undermining their reliability in real-world applications. Existing evaluation methods often overlook biases in long-form responses and the intrinsic variability of…
The need to address representation biases and sentencing disparities in legal case data has long been recognized. Here, we study the problem of identifying and measuring biases in large-scale legal case data from an algorithmic fairness…
Legal judgment prediction (LJP), which enables litigants and their lawyers to forecast judgment outcomes and refine litigation strategies, has emerged as a crucial legal NLP task. Existing studies typically utilize legal facts, i.e., facts…
Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is the task of automatically predicting a law case's judgment results given a text describing its facts, which has excellent prospects in judicial assistance systems and convenient services for the public. In…
Legal judgment prediction (LJP) applies Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques to predict judgment results based on fact descriptions automatically. Recently, large-scale public datasets and advances in NLP research have led to…
Big data and algorithmic risk prediction tools promise to improve criminal justice systems by reducing human biases and inconsistencies in decision making. Yet different, equally-justifiable choices when developing, testing, and deploying…
LLM-based formal proof assistants (e.g., in Lean) hold great promise for automating mathematical discovery. But beyond syntactic correctness, do these systems truly understand mathematical structure as humans do? We investigate this…
Existing LLM-as-a-Judge systems suffer from three fundamental limitations: limited adaptivity to task- and domain-specific evaluation criteria, systematic biases driven by non-semantic cues such as position, length, format, and model…
Fair machine learning (ML) methods help identify and mitigate the risk that algorithms encode or automate social injustices. Algorithmic approaches alone cannot resolve structural inequalities, but they can support socio-technical decision…
LLM-as-judge systems promise scalable, consistent evaluation. We find the opposite: judges are consistent, but not with each other; they are consistent with themselves. Across 3,240 evaluations (9 judges x 120 unique video x pack items x 3…
Mainstream methods for Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) based on Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) heavily rely on the statistical correlation between case facts and judgment results. This paradigm lacks explicit modeling of legal…
The burdensome impact of a skewed judges-to-cases ratio on the judicial system manifests in an overwhelming backlog of pending cases alongside an ongoing influx of new ones. To tackle this issue and expedite the judicial process, the…
The integration of large language model (LLM) technology into judicial systems is fundamentally transforming legal practice worldwide. However, this global transformation has revealed an urgent paradox requiring immediate attention. This…
Resentencing in California remains a complex legal challenge despite legislative reforms like the Racial Justice Act (2020), which allows defendants to challenge convictions based on statistical evidence of racial disparities in sentencing…
The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks. We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: (1) Score-Comparison…
In legal NLP, Case Outcome Classification (COC) must not only be accurate but also trustworthy and explainable. Existing work in explainable COC has been limited to annotations by a single expert. However, it is well-known that lawyers may…
We analyze 6.7 million case law documents to determine the presence of gender bias within our judicial system. We find that current bias detectino methods in NLP are insufficient to determine gender bias in our case law database and propose…
If two experts disagree on a test, we may conclude both cannot be 100 per cent correct. But if they completely agree, no possible evaluation can be excluded. This asymmetry in the utility of agreements versus disagreements is explored here…