Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Questioning Biases in Case Judgment Summaries: Legal Datasets or Large Language Models?

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 2312.00554 v1 pith:BOYSSLJW submitted 2023-12-01 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords biaseslegalmodelssummarieskeywordslanguagelargecase
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The evolution of legal datasets and the advent of large language models (LLMs) have significantly transformed the legal field, particularly in the generation of case judgment summaries. However, a critical concern arises regarding the potential biases embedded within these summaries. This study scrutinizes the biases present in case judgment summaries produced by legal datasets and large language models. The research aims to analyze the impact of biases on legal decision making. By interrogating the accuracy, fairness, and implications of biases in these summaries, this study contributes to a better understanding of the role of technology in legal contexts and the implications for justice systems worldwide. In this study, we investigate biases wrt Gender-related keywords, Race-related keywords, Keywords related to crime against women, Country names and religious keywords. The study shows interesting evidences of biases in the outputs generated by the large language models and pre-trained abstractive summarization models. The reasoning behind these biases needs further studies.

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. LLMs on Trial: Evaluating Judicial Fairness for Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new 177,100-case benchmark shows that 16 LLMs systematically vary criminal sentences based on extra-legal demographic and procedural details, revealing pervasive judicial unfairness.

Pith tools