Lucas Resck

Raphaël Tinarrage, Henrique Ennes, Lucas Resck et al. · cambridge

Binding precedents (súmulas vinculantes) constitute a juridical instrument unique to the Brazilian legal system and whose objectives include the protection of the Federal Supreme Court against repetitive demands. Studies of the effectiveness of these instruments in decreasing the Court's exposure to similar cases, however, indicate that they tend to fail in such a direction, with some of the binding precedents seemingly creating new demands. We empirically assess the legal impact of five binding precedents, 11, 14, 17, 26, and 37, at the highest Court level through their effects on the legal subjects they address. This analysis is only possible through the comparison of the Court's ruling about the precedents' themes before they are created, which means that these decisions should be detected through techniques of Similar Case Retrieval, which we tackle from the angle of Case Classification. The contributions of this article are therefore twofold: on the mathematical side, we compare the use of different methods of Natural Language Processing -- TF-IDF, LSTM, Longformer, and regex -- for Case Classification, whereas on the legal side, we contrast the inefficiency of these binding precedents with a set of hypotheses that may justify their repeated usage. We observe that the TF-IDF models performed slightly better than LSTM and Longformer when compared through common metrics; however, the deep learning models were able to detect certain important legal events that TF-IDF missed. On the legal side, we argue that the reasons for binding precedents to fail in responding to repetitive demand are heterogeneous and case-dependent, making it impossible to single out a specific cause. We identify five main hypotheses, which are found in different combinations in each of the precedents studied.

Lucas Resck, Isabelle Augenstein, Anna Korhonen

Despite their impressive capabilities, multilingual large language models (MLLMs) frequently exhibit inconsistent behaviour when the prompt's language changes. While such adaptation is generally desirable, it becomes a critical failure when a user's identity is explicitly defined. For instance, given a fixed British persona and an ambiguous everyday knowledge query about literature, the prompt's language frequently overwrites the system persona -- yielding Shakespeare in English but Cervantes in Spanish. To robustly quantify this Cross-lingual Cultural Inconsistency, we introduce Singleton Fleiss's $κ_S$, a metric mathematically resilient to hallucinations. For mitigation, we propose Cross-lingual Cultural Consistent Preference Optimisation (C-3PO), a consensus-driven alignment framework. C-3PO achieves up to a 0.10-point absolute increase in $κ_S$ over unaligned models, outperforming strong prompting and representation steering baselines. Empirical evaluations show this inconsistency disproportionately affects lower-resource languages like Indonesian and Persian. A layer-wise interpretability analysis reveals the underlying mechanism: by early-decoding intermediate layer representations, we find that MLLMs implicitly personalise outputs towards the prompt language's stereotypical culture as forward-pass representations stabilise.