Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

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

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2209.12325 v1 pith:AGHDACLD submitted 2022-09-25 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords legaltransferacrossdatasetfurtherresultsareascases
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original 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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Are manual annotations necessary for statutory interpretations retrieval?

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    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 ...

Pith tools