INCLUDE: Evaluating Multilingual Language Understanding with Regional Knowledge

The performance differential of large language models (LLM) between languages hinders their effective deployment in many regions, inhibiting the potential economic and societal value of generative AI tools in many communities. However, the development of functional LLMs in many languages (\ie, multilingual LLMs) is bottlenecked by the lack of high-quality evaluation resources in languages other than English. Moreover, current practices in multilingual benchmark construction often translate English resources, ignoring the regional and cultural knowledge of the environments in which multilingual systems would be used. In this work, we construct an evaluation suite of 197,243 QA pairs from local exam sources to measure the capabilities of multilingual LLMs in a variety of regional contexts. Our novel resource, INCLUDE, is a comprehensive knowledge- and reasoning-centric benchmark across 44 written languages that evaluates multilingual LLMs for performance in the actual language environments where they would be deployed.

Breaking the Manual Annotation Bottleneck: Creating a Comprehensive Legal Case Criticality Dataset through Semi-Automated Labeling

Predicting case criticality helps legal professionals in the court system manage large volumes of case law. This paper introduces the Criticality Prediction dataset, a new resource for evaluating the potential influence of Swiss Federal Supreme Court decisions on future jurisprudence. Unlike existing approaches that rely on resource-intensive manual annotations, we semi-automatically derive labels leading to a much larger dataset than otherwise possible. Our dataset features a two-tier labeling system: (1) the LD-Label, which identifies cases published as Leading Decisions (LD), and (2) the Citation-Label, which ranks cases by their citation frequency and recency. This allows for a more nuanced evaluation of case importance. We evaluate several multilingual models, including fine-tuned variants and large language models, and find that fine-tuned models consistently outperform zero-shot baselines, demonstrating the need for task-specific adaptation. Our contributions include the introduction of this task and the release of a multilingual dataset to the research community.

Unlocking Legal Knowledge: A Multilingual Dataset for Judicial Summarization in Switzerland

Legal research is a time-consuming task that most lawyers face on a daily basis. A large part of legal research entails looking up relevant caselaw and bringing it in relation to the case at hand. Lawyers heavily rely on summaries (also called headnotes) to find the right cases quickly. However, not all decisions are annotated with headnotes and writing them is time-consuming. Automated headnote creation has the potential to make hundreds of thousands of decisions more accessible for legal research in Switzerland alone. To kickstart this, we introduce the Swiss Leading Decision Summarization ( SLDS) dataset, a novel cross-lingual resource featuring 18K court rulings from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (SFSC), in German, French, and Italian, along with German headnotes. We fine-tune and evaluate three mT5 variants, along with proprietary models. Our analysis highlights that while proprietary models perform well in zero-shot and one-shot settings, fine-tuned smaller models still provide a strong competitive edge. We publicly release the dataset to facilitate further research in multilingual legal summarization and the development of assistive technologies for legal professionals

FLawN-T5: An Empirical Examination of Effective Instruction-Tuning Data Mixtures for Legal Reasoning

Instruction tuning is an important step in making language models useful for direct user interaction. However, many legal tasks remain out of reach for most open LLMs and there do not yet exist any large scale instruction datasets for the domain. This critically limits research in this application area. In this work, we curate LawInstruct, a large legal instruction dataset, covering 17 jurisdictions, 24 languages and a total of 12M examples. We present evidence that domain-specific pretraining and instruction tuning improve performance on LegalBench, including improving Flan-T5 XL by 8 points or 16\% over the baseline. However, the effect does not generalize across all tasks, training regimes, model sizes, and other factors. LawInstruct is a resource for accelerating the development of models with stronger information processing and decision making capabilities in the legal domain.

Towards Explainability and Fairness in Swiss Judgement Prediction: Benchmarking on a Multilingual Dataset

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.

LegalLens: Leveraging LLMs for Legal Violation Identification in Unstructured Text

In this study, we focus on two main tasks, the first for detecting legal violations within unstructured textual data, and the second for associating these violations with potentially affected individuals. We constructed two datasets using Large Language Models (LLMs) which were subsequently validated by domain expert annotators. Both tasks were designed specifically for the context of class-action cases. The experimental design incorporated fine-tuning models from the BERT family and open-source LLMs, and conducting few-shot experiments using closed-source LLMs. Our results, with an F1-score of 62.69\% (violation identification) and 81.02\% (associating victims), show that our datasets and setups can be used for both tasks. Finally, we publicly release the datasets and the code used for the experiments in order to advance further research in the area of legal natural language processing (NLP).

Automatic Anonymization of Swiss Federal Supreme Court Rulings

Releasing court decisions to the public relies on proper anonymization to protect all involved parties, where necessary. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court relies on an existing system that combines different traditional computational methods with human experts. In this work, we enhance the existing anonymization software using a large dataset annotated with entities to be anonymized. We compared BERT-based models with models pre-trained on in-domain data. Our results show that using in-domain data to pre-train the models further improves the F1-score by more than 5\% compared to existing models. Our work demonstrates that combining existing anonymization methods, such as regular expressions, with machine learning can further reduce manual labor and enhance automatic suggestions.

Resolving Legalese: A Multilingual Exploration of Negation Scope Resolution in Legal Documents

Resolving the scope of a negation within a sentence is a challenging NLP task. The complexity of legal texts and the lack of annotated in-domain negation corpora pose challenges for state-of-the-art (SotA) models when performing negation scope resolution on multilingual legal data. Our experiments demonstrate that models pre-trained without legal data underperform in the task of negation scope resolution. Our experiments, using language models exclusively fine-tuned on domains like literary texts and medical data, yield inferior results compared to the outcomes documented in prior cross-domain experiments. We release a new set of annotated court decisions in German, French, and Italian and use it to improve negation scope resolution in both zero-shot and multilingual settings. We achieve token-level F1-scores of up to 86.7% in our zero-shot cross-lingual experiments, where the models are trained on two languages of our legal datasets and evaluated on the third. Our multilingual experiments, where the models were trained on all available negation data and evaluated on our legal datasets, resulted in F1-scores of up to 91.1%.

Anonymity at Risk? Assessing Re-Identification Capabilities of Large Language Models

Anonymity of both natural and legal persons in court rulings is a critical aspect of privacy protection in the European Union and Switzerland. With the advent of LLMs, concerns about large-scale re-identification of anonymized persons are growing. In accordance with the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, we explore the potential of LLMs to re-identify individuals in court rulings by constructing a proof-of-concept using actual legal data from the Swiss federal supreme court. Following the initial experiment, we constructed an anonymized Wikipedia dataset as a more rigorous testing ground to further investigate the findings. With the introduction and application of the new task of re-identifying people in texts, we also introduce new metrics to measure performance. We systematically analyze the factors that influence successful re-identifications, identifying model size, input length, and instruction tuning among the most critical determinants. Despite high re-identification rates on Wikipedia, even the best LLMs struggled with court decisions. The complexity is attributed to the lack of test datasets, the necessity for substantial training resources, and data sparsity in the information used for re-identification. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that re-identification using LLMs may not be feasible for now, but as the proof-of-concept on Wikipedia showed, it might become possible in the future. We hope that our system can help enhance the confidence in the security of anonymized decisions, thus leading to the courts being more confident to publish decisions.

LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models

The advent of large language models (LLMs) and their adoption by the legal community has given rise to the question: what types of legal reasoning can LLMs perform? To enable greater study of this question, we present LegalBench: a collaboratively constructed legal reasoning benchmark consisting of 162 tasks covering six different types of legal reasoning. LegalBench was built through an interdisciplinary process, in which we collected tasks designed and hand-crafted by legal professionals. Because these subject matter experts took a leading role in construction, tasks either measure legal reasoning capabilities that are practically useful, or measure reasoning skills that lawyers find interesting. To enable cross-disciplinary conversations about LLMs in the law, we additionally show how popular legal frameworks for describing legal reasoning -- which distinguish between its many forms -- correspond to LegalBench tasks, thus giving lawyers and LLM developers a common vocabulary. This paper describes LegalBench, presents an empirical evaluation of 20 open-source and commercial LLMs, and illustrates the types of research explorations LegalBench enables.