Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 45 references

PROSLEX: A Novel Dataset for Expert-Annotated Legal Statute Prediction for Indian Judiciary

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read PROSLEX provides 1,623 expert-annotated Indian judgments with statute labels and 7,450 reasoning spans, enabling evaluation of models that both predict laws and justify them.

desk verdict PROSLEX is a genuinely useful expert-annotated dataset for Indian statute prediction with explanations, but the paper must clarify whether the 1,623 documents are unique judgments or document-statute pairs before the benchmark numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08830 v1 pith:UHKSR6UL submitted 2026-08-09 cs.AI

Subinay Adhikary , Upal Bhattacharya , Vivek Kumar Singh , Anurag Sharma , Shubham Kumar Nigam , Suvasis Das , Shouvik Kumar Guha , Koustav Rudra
show 1 more author
Kripabandhu Ghosh
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords StatutePredictionLargeLanguageModelExplanationPROSLEXIndianPenalCodeChain-of-thoughtLegaldatasetMulti-labelclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that legal statute prediction should not stop at accuracy because a court decision must be explainable and justifiable. To make that measurable, it introduces PROSLEX, a dataset of 1,623 expert-annotated documents from Indian Supreme Court judgments in which legal experts linked each applicable statute to a highlighted span of text, producing 7,450 explanations in total. The paper then benchmarks fine-tuned legal language models and large language models under zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, and tree-of-thoughts prompting. The empirical findings are that fine-tuned InLegalBERT is the best statute-only predictor with a macro F1 of 0.82, while GPT-4 in the chain-of-thought setting is the best predictor-with-explanation on both F1 (0.75) and expert-rated explanation quality (3.91/4). The dataset and code are released publicly for reproducibility.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the PROSLEX dataset itself: 1,623 Indian case documents, each stripped to a plain statement of the facts, paired with gold labels from seven criminal statutes (rioting, disappearance of evidence, murder, rape, cheating, cruelty by a husband, and criminal intimidation) and with the 7,450 text spans that legal experts marked as the reason a statute applies. Annotation was done in parallel by two legal experts per section, and a senior expert adjudicated whenever their span agreement, measured by ROUGE-L, a longest-common-subsequence overlap metric, fell below 0.75. This dataset is what makes the empirical comparison possible: fine-tuned transformers and in-context-learning LLMs are all scored against the same gold spans and labels. The prompting side of the machinery is conventional chain-of-thought and tree-of-thoughts in-context learning, with few-shot exemplars retrieved by semantic similarity between statute descriptions and annotated spans.

What would settle it

Re-annotate a random sample of 100 documents with independent legal experts from a different institution, compute label agreement (Cohen's kappa) and span overlap (ROUGE-L) against the gold standard; a large drop from the reported 0.79 mean ROUGE-L or low kappa would indicate the annotations are not reproducible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an expert-annotated, explanation-bearing dataset at this scale did not previously exist for Indian statute prediction, and that its existence changes the evaluation question from 'which model gets the label right' to 'which model can also say why.' PROSLEX annotates facts drawn from Supreme Court judgments with the applicable Indian Penal Code sections and with the exact span of text that justifies each section, producing 7,450 explanations. Benchmarked on this gold standard, fine-tuned InLegalBERT is the most accurate statute-only predictor with a macro F1 of 0.82, while GPT-4 prompted with chain-of-thought leads when predictions must come with explanations, reaching a macro F1 of 0.75 and an average expert rating of 3.91 out of 4 for explanation quality. The paper also shows that tree-of-thoughts prompting reduces prediction accuracy, and that a model can pick the right statute while pointing to the wrong supporting text, so label accuracy and reasoning quality must be measured separately.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark depends on the assumption that the expert-annotated statute labels and supporting text spans are correct and complete for the 1,623 selected cases, and that the selection of seven IPC sections and only upheld statutes is representative of the legal contexts the models will face.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fine-tuned domain models (InLegalBERT at 0.82 macro F1) remain the strongest choice for pure statute classification when no explanation is required.
  • Chain-of-thought prompting of GPT-4 is the most promising configuration for generating statute predictions together with legally acceptable explanations, at 0.75 macro F1 and a 3.91/4 expert rating.
  • Tree-of-thoughts prompting degrades statute prediction in this domain, so branching-exploration strategies need careful adaptation before use in legal tasks.
  • Evaluation of legal AI should separate prediction correctness from reasoning correctness, since the paper demonstrates cases where the statute is right but the supporting span is wrong.
  • The public release of PROSLEX gives future work a fixed benchmark for comparing explainable statute-prediction systems on Indian law.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extending PROSLEX beyond the seven IPC sections and beyond cases where the statute was upheld in court would test whether models handle dropped or amended charges, a setting closer to real litigation where charges are routinely reframed.
  • The near-perfect expert ratings for GPT-4 explanations despite low lexical overlap with the gold spans (ROUGE-L 0.31) suggest the experts are rewarding legal plausibility rather than textual fidelity; a follow-up could score explanations element by element (e.g., presence of actus reus and mens rea) to see which features drive the ratings.
  • The error-analysis finding that a model can predict the right statute while citing the wrong text could be turned into an element-level benchmark: for each statute, check whether the model's selected span actually satisfies the statutory ingredients, and report precision and recall over ingredients.
  • PROSLEX could also support retrieval-augmented explanation: using similar expert-annotated cases as grounding exemplars may improve both prediction and explanation for rare statutes, a testable extension the paper does not run.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. PROSLEX is presented as a new expert-annotated dataset for legal statute prediction in the Indian context, containing 1,623 legal documents paired with statute labels for seven Indian Penal Code sections and 7,450 explanation spans. The dataset was created by legal experts who selected cases, extracted case facts, and annotated text spans as rationales, with a senior expert adjudicating low-agreement cases. The paper reports experiments comparing fine-tuned language models (LegalBERT, InLegalBERT, etc.) and large language models under zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, and tree-of-thought prompting for both statute prediction and explanation generation. The main findings are that fine-tuned InLegalBERT achieves the best statute-only macro F1 (0.82), while GPT-4 with chain-of-thought achieves the best prediction-with-explanation performance (0.75 macro F1) and the highest expert explanation rating (3.91/4).

Significance. If the dataset construction and instance counts are as claimed, PROSLEX addresses a genuine gap by providing expert-annotated explanations for statute prediction in Indian law, and the detailed annotation protocol with inter-annotator agreement and adjudication is a strength. The paper also provides a useful comparative benchmark of prompting strategies. However, the significance is conditional on resolving the ambiguity about whether the 1,623 documents are unique judgments or document-statute pairs; the lack of a clear statement on deduplication and split methodology currently undermines the integrity of all reported benchmark numbers.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.3, Table 2, Section 4] The paper needs to clarify whether the 1,623 'documents' are unique judgments or document-statute pairs. The per-statute counts in Table 2 sum to exactly 1,623 (306+307+277+150+247+170+166), and Figure 1 shows one judgment annotated with both IPC 147 and IPC 302. If a judgment can be counted under multiple statutes, the total number of unique judgments is less than 1,623, and the abstract's claim of 1,623 expert-annotated legal documents is an overcount; if the 1,623 entries are actually document-statute pairs, the dataset is not organized as multi-label documents. The paper never states that duplicates were removed or that the 70/10/20 split was applied to unique judgments. If a duplicated judgment appears in training under one statute and in test under another, the reported F1 scores are contaminated by leakage. The authors must specify the instance definition and, if needed, rerun the evaluation on a deduplicated document-level split.
  2. [Section 5.2, Table 5] The explanation evaluation compares free-text LLM rationales against expert-extracted text spans. This mismatch means lexical metrics like ROUGE and BLEU cannot distinguish a legally valid paraphrase from a poor one: a model that copies the span verbatim would score higher than a model that provides equivalent reasoning in different words. The paper does not discuss this limitation when interpreting the low lexical scores (e.g., GPT-4 ROUGE-L 0.31) or when ranking models. Since the paper's stated goal is to evaluate 'coherence and legal validity,' the authors should either adapt the evaluation to the extraction setting (e.g., ask models to select spans) or report how the lexical/semantic metrics correlate with the expert ratings and discuss the mismatch explicitly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 7] The rating-score distributions sum to 49 for each model; specify the total number of rated explanations per model or correct the counts.
  2. [Section 5.2] The text mentions METEOR as a semantic metric, but Table 5 and the reported results use BLEURT; align the text and table.
  3. [Section 4] The description of the stratified split does not state the stratification variable; specify whether stratification was by statute label, document, or something else, and confirm that no document appears in more than one split.
  4. [Section 3.4] The calibration study for the ROUGE-L threshold used 50 pairs; report the 95% confidence interval or the number of adjudication decisions to support the 90% claim.
  5. [Section 6] The paper lacks a limitations section; add one discussing the restriction to seven IPC statutes, the use of only Supreme Court judgments, and the exclusion of cases where the statute was initially charged but not upheld.
  6. [Section 2] The related work references [33], which shares authors with this submission; consider clarifying the relationship and differences with that earlier 45-document study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: PROSLEX is a dataset contribution whose evaluations are self-contained; no prediction reduces to a fitted input or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is a newly constructed expert-annotated dataset, PROSLEX, followed by supervised and in-context-learning evaluations on held-out splits. No theoretical derivation is claimed that could reduce to its own inputs. The few-shot exemplar selection uses InLegalBERT embeddings (Section 4.2), and InLegalBERT is also a fine-tuned baseline, but this does not force the reported outcomes: InLegalBERT's macro-F1 of 0.82 comes from fine-tuning on the training split, while the LLM few-shot predictions are generated on the test split from retrieved exemplars, and the LLMs generally score lower than InLegalBERT, so the benchmark result is not a mathematical consequence of the exemplar-selection choice. The ROUGE-L 0.75 adjudication threshold (Section 3.4) is a curation heuristic fitted on 50 calibration pairs; it affects which annotations were adjudicated, but it is not a parameter that is later renamed as a prediction or evaluation outcome. The paper cites prior work by the same group, most notably [33], but only to motivate the research gap and to compare with a 45-document pilot; the current dataset and experiments are self-contained and do not depend on an unverified self-citation as their load-bearing justification. The skeptical concern about possible double-counting of multi-label documents across per-statute counts in Table 2 is a data-integrity and leakage question, not a circularity defect, and no specific reduction of a prediction to an input can be exhibited from the text. The manuscript's own stated limitations (budget constraints, inability to reach 250 cases for every statute) are resource constraints, not circular reasoning. Overall, the derivation chain from dataset construction to model evaluation is transparent and non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim is a new dataset, so the load-bearing assumptions are about annotation quality and representativeness. There are no invented physical or abstract entities. The main free parameters are the adjudication threshold and the ToT hyperparameters, both tuned on data.

free parameters (5)
  • ROUGE-L adjudication threshold = 0.75
    Chosen based on calibration study: 90% of pairs with ROUGE-L below 0.75 required adjudication (Section 3.4).
  • ToT maximum depth = 7
    Set after preliminary experiments on validation subset (Section 4.4).
  • ToT child nodes per state = 3
    Set after preliminary experiments on validation subset (Section 4.4).
  • ToT node limit per level = 10
    Set after preliminary experiments on validation subset (Section 4.4).
  • ToT confidence threshold = 0.4
    Set after preliminary experiments on validation subset (Section 4.4).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Legal expert annotations are accurate ground truth for applicable statutes and reasoning.
    Section 3 assumes that expert labels and selected spans define the gold standard for the dataset, with adjudication used to resolve disagreements but no independent validation against court outcomes beyond the 'upheld by the ruling court' filter.
  • domain assumption The selected seven IPC statutes and the subset of 33,546 Supreme Court judgments are representative of Indian criminal law cases.
    Section 3.2 explicitly chooses statutes based on social significance, sufficient documents, and distinctiveness, which may not cover the full space of criminal provisions.
  • domain assumption ROUGE-L is a valid proxy for inter-annotator agreement in legal explanation annotation.
    Section 3.4 uses ROUGE-L to quantify overlap between two experts' span choices, assuming that lexical overlap reflects agreement on legal reasoning.
  • domain assumption The 'facts of the case' extraction from original judgments preserves all legally relevant information.
    Section 3.3 step 2 has legal experts extract facts, but the selection and condensation process could omit context needed for correct statute prediction.
  • domain assumption The calibration study with 50 pairs accurately determines the adjudication threshold.
    Section 3.4 bases the 0.75 threshold on a small 50-pair study, which is an indirect inference about the full dataset.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PROSLEX: A Novel Dataset for Expert-Annotated Legal Statute Prediction for Indian Judiciary." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UHKSR6UL

@misc{pith2026260808830,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PROSLEX: A Novel Dataset for Expert-Annotated Legal Statute Prediction for Indian Judiciary},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UHKSR6UL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08830}
}
read the original abstract

Legal Statute Prediction (LSP) involves automatically identifying relevant legal statutes given factual descriptions in legal documents, typically framed as a multi-label classification task within natural language processing and information retrieval research. While recent advances have begun incorporating Large Language Models (LLMs) for statute prediction, current approaches primarily focus on accuracy metrics without addressing the critical need for legal reasoning, a fundamental requirement in judicial contexts where decisions must be explainable and justifiable. To address this research gap, we present PROSLEX (PRediction Of Statutes and LEgal eXplanation), a comprehensive dataset comprising 1,623 expert-annotated legal documents from the Indian context. Each document is paired with statute predictions and detailed explanations, totaling 7,450 explanations, capturing the underlying legal reasoning. Using this dataset, we systematically evaluate various prompting strategies, including zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, and tree-of-thoughts approaches, to generate both statute predictions and their corresponding legal rationales. Our evaluation framework measures not only predictive performance but also the coherence and legal validity of generated explanations, positioning PROSLEX as a benchmark for developing explainable AI systems that can support legal practitioners while advancing research in interpretable legal NLP. To ensure reproducibility, we have made our PROSLEX dataset and model code available on GitHub: https://github.com/subinay494/Legal_Statute_Prediction_Explanation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08830 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of annotation by legal experts in the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This workflow illustrates a legal prediction framework to identify applicable Indian Penal Code (IPC) statutes for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We compute the semantic similarity score between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The red-colored text span represents the portion labeled by the GPT-4 model in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Subinay Adhikary, Junsume Das, and Dwaipayan Roy. 2025. Thinkir at eRisk 2025: early detection and risk assessment of depression using transformer models. Working Notes of CLEF(2025), 9–12

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Subinay Adhikary, Procheta Sen, Dwaipayan Roy, and Kripabandhu Ghosh. 2024. A case study for automated attribute extraction from legal documents using large language models.Artificial Intelligence and Law(2024), 1–22

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Purbid Bambroo, Subinay Adhikary, Paheli Bhattacharya, Abhijnan Chakraborty, Saptarshi Ghosh, and Kripabandhu Ghosh. 2025. MARRO: multi-headed attention for rhetorical role labeling in legal documents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10659 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Iz Beltagy, Matthew E Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long- document transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05150(2020)

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Paheli Bhattacharya, Kripabandhu Ghosh, Saptarshi Ghosh, Arindam Pal, Parth Mehta, Arnab Bhattacharya, and Prasenjit Majumder. 2019. FIRE 2019 AILA track: artificial intelligence for legal assistance. InProceedings of the 11th annual meeting of the forum for information retrieval evaluation. 4–6

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Paheli Bhattacharya, Kripabandhu Ghosh, Saptarshi Ghosh, Arindam Pal, Parth Mehta, Arnab Bhattacharya, and Prasenjit Majumder. 2019. Overview of the FIRE 2019 AILA Track: Artificial Intelligence for Legal Assistance.. InFIRE (working notes). 1–12

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Sheng Bi, Zafar Ali, Tianxing Wu, and Guilin Qi. 2024. Knowledge-enhanced model with dual-graph interaction for confusing legal charge prediction.Expert Systems with Applications249 (2024), 123626

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Ilias Chalkidis, Manos Fergadiotis, Prodromos Malakasiotis, Nikolaos Aletras, and Ion Androutsopoulos. 2020. LEGAL-BERT: The muppets straight out of law school.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02559(2020)

    arXiv 2020

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Ilias Chalkidis, Abhik Jana, Dirk Hartung, Michael Bommarito, Ion Androut- sopoulos, Daniel Martin Katz, and Nikolaos Aletras. 2021. LexGLUE: A bench- mark dataset for legal language understanding in English.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.00976(2021)

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Huajie Chen, Deng Cai, Wei Dai, Zehui Dai, and Yadong Ding. 2019. Charge-based prison term prediction with deep gating network.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.11521 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Yu Chen, You Zhang, Jin Wang, Dan Xu, and Xuejie Zhang. 2024. Learning Defendant-aware Label Representation for Multi-Defendant Charge Prediction. In2024 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 1–8

    2024

  4. [12]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Zikun Hu, Xiang Li, Cunchao Tu, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2018. Few-shot charge prediction with discriminative legal attributes. InProceedings of the 27th international conference on computational linguistics. 487–498

    2018

  6. [14]

    Abhinav Joshi, Shounak Paul, Akshat Sharma, Pawan Goyal, Saptarshi Ghosh, and Ashutosh Modi. 2024. IL-TUR: Benchmark for Indian legal text understanding and reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05399(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Liangyi Kang, Jie Liu, Lingqiao Liu, and Dan Ye. 2021. Label definitions augmented interaction model for legal charge prediction. InAdvances in Information Retrieval: 43rd European Conference on IR Research, ECIR 2021, Virtual Event, March 28–April 1, 2021, Proceedings, Part I...

    2021

  8. [16]

    Penghua Li, Fen Zhao, Yuanyuan Li, and Ziqin Zhu. 2018. Law text classification using semi-supervised convolutional neural networks. In2018 Chinese control and decision conference (CCDC). IEEE, 309–313

    2018

  9. [17]

    Shang Li, Boyang Liu, Lin Ye, Hongli Zhang, and Binxing Fang. 2019. Element- aware legal judgment prediction for criminal cases with confusing charges. In 2019 IEEE 31st International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI). IEEE, 660–667

    2019

  10. [18]

    Wei Li, Shiyu Zhu, and Li Li. 2023. Leveraging knowledge-aware method for charge prediction. In2023 26th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD). IEEE, 1496–1501

    2023

  11. [19]

    Vera Liao and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan

    Q. Vera Liao and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. 2024. AI Transparency in the Age of LLMs: A Human-Centered Research Roadmap.Harvard Data Science Review Special Issue 5 (may 31 2024). https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/aelql9qy

    2024

  12. [20]

    Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. InText summarization branches out. 74–81

    2004

  13. [21]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Yi-Hung Liu, Yen-Liang Chen, and Wu-Liang Ho. 2015. Predicting associated statutes for legal problems.Information Processing & Management51, 1 (2015), 194–211. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2014.07.003

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Bingfeng Luo, Yansong Feng, Jianbo Xu, Xiang Zhang, and Dongyan Zhao. 2017. Learning to predict charges for criminal cases with legal basis.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.09168(2017)

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Anish Pahilajani, Samyak Jain, and Devasha Trivedi. 2024. NLP at UC Santa Cruz at SemEval-2024 task 5: Legal answer validation using few-shot multi-choice QA. InProceedings of the 18th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2024). 1309–1314

    2024

  17. [25]

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. InProceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 311–318

    2002

  18. [26]

    Shounak Paul, Rajas Bhatt, Pawan Goyal, and Saptarshi Ghosh. 2024. Legal statute identification: A case study using state-of-the-art datasets and methods. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2231–2240

    2024

  19. [27]

    Shounak Paul, Pawan Goyal, and Saptarshi Ghosh. 2022. Lesicin: A heterogeneous graph-based approach for automatic legal statute identification from indian legal documents. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 36. 11139–11146

    2022

  20. [28]

    Shounak Paul, Arpan Mandal, Pawan Goyal, and Saptarshi Ghosh. 2023. Pre- trained language models for the legal domain: a case study on Indian law. In Proceedings of the nineteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. 187–196

    2023

  21. [29]

    Sachin Pawar, Basit Ali, Girish K Palshikar, Ramandeep Singh, and Dhirendra Singh. 2023. Extraction and classification of statute facets using few-shot learning. InProceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. 197–206

    2023

  22. [30]

    Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur P Parikh. 2020. BLEURT: Learning robust metrics for text generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04696(2020)

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Yatian Shen, Jun Sun, Xiaopeng Li, Lei Zhang, Yan Li, and Xiajiong Shen. 2018. Legal article-aware end-to-end memory network for charge prediction. InPro- ceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Science and Application Engineering. 1–5

    2018

  24. [32]

    Samir Undavia, Adam Meyers, and John E Ortega. 2018. A comparative study of classifying legal documents with neural networks. In2018 Federated conference on computer science and information systems (FedCSIS). IEEE, 515–522

    2018

  25. [33]

    Shaurya Vats, Atharva Zope, Somsubhra De, Anurag Sharma, Upal Bhattacharya, Shubham Kumar Nigam, Shouvik Guha, Koustav Rudra, and Kripabandhu Ghosh

  26. [34]

    Duan Wei and Li Lin. 2019. An external knowledge enhanced multi-label charge prediction approach with label number learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02205 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Fusheng Wei, Han Qin, Shi Ye, and Haozhen Zhao. 2018. Empirical study of deep learning for text classification in legal document review. In2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). IEEE, 3317–3320

    2018

  28. [36]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems35 (2022), 24824–24837

    2022

  29. [37]

    Nuo Xu, Pinghui Wang, Long Chen, Li Pan, Xiaoyan Wang, and Junzhou Zhao

  30. [38]

    Wenmian Yang, Weijia Jia, Xiaojie Zhou, and Yutao Luo. 2019. Legal judg- ment prediction via multi-perspective bi-feedback network.arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.03969(2019)

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Ze Yang, Pengfei Wang, Lei Zhang, Linjun Shou, and Wenwen Xu. 2019. A recurrent attention network for judgment prediction. InArtificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning–ICANN 2019: Text and Time Series: 28th International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, Munich, G...

    2019

  32. [40]

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Tom Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2023. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems36 (2023), 11809–11822

    2023

  33. [41]

    Fangyi Yu, Lee Quartey, and Frank Schilder. 2022. Legal prompting: Teaching a language model to think like a lawyer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.01326(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Linan Yue, Qi Liu, Binbin Jin, Han Wu, Kai Zhang, Yanqing An, Mingyue Cheng, Biao Yin, and Dayong Wu. 2021. Neurjudge: A circumstance-aware neural framework for legal judgment prediction. InProceedings of the 44th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development ...

    2021

  35. [43]

    Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert.arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09675(2019)

    2019 arXiv

  36. [2020]

    Distinguish confusing law articles for legal judgment prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.02557(2020)

    2020 arXiv

  37. [2023]

    InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali (Eds.)

    LLMs – the Good, the Bad or the Indispensable?: A Use Case on Legal Statute Prediction and Legal Judgment Prediction on Indian Court Cases. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali (Eds.). Association fo...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.