Pith. sign in

An Empirical Study on Cross-X Transfer for Legal Judgment Prediction

1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.

1 Pith paper citing it
abstract

Cross-lingual transfer learning has proven useful in a variety of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, but it is understudied in the context of legal NLP, and not at all in Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP). We explore transfer learning techniques on LJP using the trilingual Swiss-Judgment-Prediction dataset, including cases written in three languages. We find that cross-lingual transfer improves the overall results across languages, especially when we use adapter-based fine-tuning. Finally, we further improve the model's performance by augmenting the training dataset with machine-translated versions of the original documents, using a 3x larger training corpus. Further on, we perform an analysis exploring the effect of cross-domain and cross-regional transfer, i.e., train a model across domains (legal areas), or regions. We find that in both settings (legal areas, origin regions), models trained across all groups perform overall better, while they also have improved results in the worst-case scenarios. Finally, we report improved results when we ambitiously apply cross-jurisdiction transfer, where we further augment our dataset with Indian legal cases.

citation-role summary

background 1

citation-polarity summary

fields

cs.CL 1

years

2025 1

verdicts

CONDITIONAL 1

roles

background 1

polarities

support 1

representative citing papers

Are manual annotations necessary for statutory interpretations retrieval?

cs.CL · 2025-06-16 · conditional · novelty 6.0

With a large DeBERTa model, annotating 500 to 1000 sentences per legal concept matches full annotation, and LLM-based annotation (Qwen 2.5) achieves NDCG scores close to or better than human-annotation-trained models on the statutory interpretation retrieval task.

citing papers explorer

Showing 1 of 1 citing paper.

  • Are manual annotations necessary for statutory interpretations retrieval? cs.CL · 2025-06-16 · conditional · none · ref 15 · internal anchor

    With a large DeBERTa model, annotating 500 to 1000 sentences per legal concept matches full annotation, and LLM-based annotation (Qwen 2.5) achieves NDCG scores close to or better than human-annotation-trained models on the statutory interpretation retrieval task.