Pith. sign in

Cross-Domain Generalization and Knowledge Transfer in Transformers Trained on Legal Data

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

1 Pith paper citing it
abstract

We analyze the ability of pre-trained language models to transfer knowledge among datasets annotated with different type systems and to generalize beyond the domain and dataset they were trained on. We create a meta task, over multiple datasets focused on the prediction of rhetorical roles. Prediction of the rhetorical role a sentence plays in a case decision is an important and often studied task in AI & Law. Typically, it requires the annotation of a large number of sentences to train a model, which can be time-consuming and expensive. Further, the application of the models is restrained to the same dataset it was trained on. We fine-tune language models and evaluate their performance across datasets, to investigate the models' ability to generalize across domains. Our results suggest that the approach could be helpful in overcoming the cold-start problem in active or interactvie learning, and shows the ability of the models to generalize across datasets and domains.

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 22 · 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.