Santosh T.y.s.s

T. Y. S. S Santosh, Marcel Perez San Blas, Phillip Kemper et al.

We report on an experiment in case outcome classification on European Court of Human Rights cases where our model first learns to identify the convention articles allegedly violated by the state from case facts descriptions, and subsequently uses that information to classify whether the court finds a violation of those articles. We assess the dependency between these two tasks at the feature and outcome level. Furthermore, we leverage a hierarchical contrastive loss to pull together article-specific representations of cases at the higher level, leading to distinctive article clusters. The cases in each article cluster are further pulled closer based on their outcome, leading to sub-clusters of cases with similar outcomes. Our experiment results demonstrate that, given a static pre-trained encoder, our models produce a small but consistent improvement in classification performance over single-task and joint models without contrastive loss.

Shanshan Xu, T. Y. S. S Santosh, Oana Ichim et al.

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 disagree in their assessment of case facts. We hence collect a novel dataset RAVE: Rationale Variation in ECHR1, which is obtained from two experts in the domain of international human rights law, for whom we observe weak agreement. We study their disagreements and build a two-level task-independent taxonomy, supplemented with COC-specific subcategories. To our knowledge, this is the first work in the legal NLP that focuses on human label variation. We quantitatively assess different taxonomy categories and find that disagreements mainly stem from underspecification of the legal context, which poses challenges given the typically limited granularity and noise in COC metadata. We further assess the explainablility of SOTA COC models on RAVE and observe limited agreement between models and experts. Overall, our case study reveals hitherto underappreciated complexities in creating benchmark datasets in legal NLP that revolve around identifying aspects of a case's facts supposedly relevant to its outcome.

Shanshan Xu, Leon Staufer, T. Y. S. S Santosh et al. · cambridge

Recognizing vulnerability is crucial for understanding and implementing targeted support to empower individuals in need. This is especially important at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), where the court adapts Convention standards to meet actual individual needs and thus ensures effective human rights protection. However, the concept of vulnerability remains elusive at the ECtHR and no prior NLP research has dealt with it. To enable future research in this area, we present VECHR, a novel expert-annotated multi-label dataset comprising of vulnerability type classification and explanation rationale. We benchmark the performance of state-of-the-art models on VECHR from both prediction and explainability perspectives. Our results demonstrate the challenging nature of the task with lower prediction performance and limited agreement between models and experts. Further, we analyze the robustness of these models in dealing with out-of-domain (OOD) data and observe overall limited performance. Our dataset poses unique challenges offering significant room for improvement regarding performance, explainability, and robustness.

Santosh T. Y. S. S, Nina Baumgartner, Matthias Stürmer et al.

The assessment of explainability in Legal Judgement Prediction (LJP) systems is of paramount importance in building trustworthy and transparent systems, particularly considering the reliance of these systems on factors that may lack legal relevance or involve sensitive attributes. This study delves into the realm of explainability and fairness in LJP models, utilizing Swiss Judgement Prediction (SJP), the only available multilingual LJP dataset. We curate a comprehensive collection of rationales that `support' and `oppose' judgement from legal experts for 108 cases in German, French, and Italian. By employing an occlusion-based explainability approach, we evaluate the explainability performance of state-of-the-art monolingual and multilingual BERT-based LJP models, as well as models developed with techniques such as data augmentation and cross-lingual transfer, which demonstrated prediction performance improvement. Notably, our findings reveal that improved prediction performance does not necessarily correspond to enhanced explainability performance, underscoring the significance of evaluating models from an explainability perspective. Additionally, we introduce a novel evaluation framework, Lower Court Insertion (LCI), which allows us to quantify the influence of lower court information on model predictions, exposing current models' biases.

Santosh T. Y. S. S, Youssef Tarek Elkhayat, Oana Ichim et al.

Due to their ability to process long and complex contexts, LLMs can offer key benefits to the Legal domain, but their adoption has been hindered by their tendency to generate unfaithful, ungrounded, or hallucinatory outputs. While Retrieval-Augmented Generation offers a promising solution by grounding generations in external knowledge, it offers no guarantee that the provided context will be effectively integrated. To address this, context-aware decoding strategies have been proposed to amplify the influence of relevant context, but they usually do not explicitly enforce faithfulness to the context. In this work, we introduce Confidence-guided Copy-based Decoding for Legal Text Generation (CoCoLex)-a decoding strategy that dynamically interpolates the model produced vocabulary distribution with a distribution derived based on copying from the context. CoCoLex encourages direct copying based on the model's confidence, ensuring greater fidelity to the source. Experimental results on five legal benchmarks demonstrate that CoCoLex outperforms existing context-aware decoding methods, particularly in long-form generation tasks.

Shanshan Xu, Santosh T. Y. S. S, Barbara Plank

Human Label Variation (HLV) refers to legitimate disagreement in annotation that reflects the genuine diversity of human perspectives rather than mere error. For decades, HLV in NLP was dismissed as noise to be discarded, and only slowly over the last decade has it been reframed as a signal for improving model robustness. With the rise of large language models (LLMs), where post-training on human feedback has become central to model alignment, the role of HLV has become increasingly consequential. Yet current preference-learning datasets routinely aggregate multiple annotations into a single label, thereby flattening diverse perspectives into a false universal agreement and erasing precisely the pluralism of human values that alignment aims to preserve. In this position paper, we argue that preserving HLV as an embodiment of human pluralism must be treated as a Selbstzweck - a goal it self when designing AI systems. We call for proactively incorporating HLV into preference datasets and outline actionable steps towards it.