--- annotations_creators: - expert-generated language: - de - fr - it - en language_creators: - expert-generated - found license: - cc-by-sa-4.0 multilinguality: - multilingual pretty_name: OcclusionSwissJudgmentPrediction size_categories: - 1K year: (**int**) the publication year
text: (**str**) the facts of the case
label: (class label) the judgment outcome: 0 (dismissal) or 1 (approval)
language: (**str**) one of (de, fr, it)
region: (**str**) the region of the lower court
canton: (**str**) the canton of the lower court
legal area: (**str**) the legal area of the case
The following data fields are provided for documents (test): id: (**int**) a unique identifier of the for the document
year: (**int**) the publication year
label: (**str**) the judgment outcome: dismissal or approval
language: (**str**) one of (de, fr, it)
region: (**str**) the region of the lower court
canton: (**str**) the canton of the lower court
legal area: (**str**) the legal area of the case
explainability_label (**str**): the explainability label assigned to the occluded text: Supports judgment, Opposes judgment, Neutral, Baseline
occluded_text (**str**): the occluded text
text: (**str**) the facts of the case w/o the occluded text except for cases w/ explainability label "Baseline" (contain entire facts)
Note that Baseline cases are only contained in version 1 of the occlusion test set, since they do not change from experiment to experiment. ### Data Splits Language | Subset | Number of Documents (Training/Validation/Test) | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | German| de_1| 35'452 / 4'705 / 427 German| de_2| 35'452 / 4'705 / 1366 German| de_3| 35'452 / 4'705 / 3567 German| de_4| 35'452 / 4'705 / 7235 French | fr_1 | 21'179 / 3'095 / 307 French | fr_2 | 21'179 / 3'095 / 854 French | fr_3 | 21'179 / 3'095 / 1926 French | fr_4 | 21'179 / 3'095 / 3279 Italian | it_1| 3'072 / 408 / 299 Italian | it_2| 3'072 / 408 / 919 Italian | it_3| 3'072 / 408 / 2493 Italian | it_4| 3'072 / 408 / 5733 All | all | 59'709 / 8'208 / 28375 ## Dataset Creation ### Curation Rationale The dataset was curated by Niklaus et al. (2021) and Nina Baumgartner. ### Source Data #### Initial Data Collection and Normalization The original data are available at the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (https://www.bger.ch) in unprocessed formats (HTML). The documents were downloaded from the Entscheidsuche portal (https://entscheidsuche.ch) in HTML. #### Who are the source language producers? Switzerland has four official languages with 3 languages (German, French and Italian) being represented in more than 1000 Swiss Federal Supreme court decisions. The decisions are written by the judges and clerks in the language of the proceedings. ### Annotations #### Annotation process The decisions have been annotated with the binarized judgment outcome using parsers and regular expressions. In addition a subset of the test set (27 cases in German, 24 in French and 23 in Italian spanning over the years 2017 an 20200) was annotated by legal experts, splitting sentences/group of sentences and annotated with one of the following explainability label: Supports judgment, Opposes Judgment and Neutral. The test sets have each sentence/ group of sentence once occluded, enabling an analysis of the changes in the model's performance. The legal expert annotation were conducted from April 2020 to August 2020. #### Who are the annotators? Joel Niklaus and Adrian Jörg annotated the binarized judgment outcomes. Metadata is published by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (https://www.bger.ch). The group of legal experts consists of Thomas Lüthi (lawyer), Lynn Grau (law student at master's level) and Angela Stefanelli (law student at master's level). ### Personal and Sensitive Information The dataset contains publicly available court decisions from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Personal or sensitive information has been anonymized by the court before publication according to the following guidelines: https://www.bger.ch/home/juridiction/anonymisierungsregeln.html. ## Additional Information ### Dataset Curators Niklaus et al. (2021) and Nina Baumgartner ### Licensing Information We release the data under CC-BY-4.0 which complies with the court licensing (https://www.bger.ch/files/live/sites/bger/files/pdf/de/urteilsveroeffentlichung_d.pdf) © Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 2000-2020 The copyright for the editorial content of this website and the consolidated texts, which is owned by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. This means that you can re-use the content provided you acknowledge the source and indicate any changes you have made. Source: https://www.bger.ch/files/live/sites/bger/files/pdf/de/urteilsveroeffentlichung_d.pdf ### Citation Information ``` @misc{baumgartner_nina_occlusion_2022, title = {From Occlusion to Transparancy – An Occlusion-Based Explainability Approach for Legal Judgment Prediction in Switzerland}, shorttitle = {From Occlusion to Transparancy}, abstract = {Natural Language Processing ({NLP}) models have been used for more and more complex tasks such as Legal Judgment Prediction ({LJP}). A {LJP} model predicts the outcome of a legal case by utilizing its facts. This increasing deployment of Artificial Intelligence ({AI}) in high-stakes domains such as law and the involvement of sensitive data has increased the need for understanding such systems. We propose a multilingual occlusion-based explainability approach for {LJP} in Switzerland and conduct a study on the bias using Lower Court Insertion ({LCI}). We evaluate our results using different explainability metrics introduced in this thesis and by comparing them to high-quality Legal Expert Annotations using Inter Annotator Agreement. Our findings show that the model has a varying understanding of the semantic meaning and context of the facts section, and struggles to distinguish between legally relevant and irrelevant sentences. We also found that the insertion of a different lower court can have an effect on the prediction, but observed no distinct effects based on legal areas, cantons, or regions. However, we did identify a language disparity with Italian performing worse than the other languages due to representation inequality in the training data, which could lead to potential biases in the prediction in multilingual regions of Switzerland. Our results highlight the challenges and limitations of using {NLP} in the judicial field and the importance of addressing concerns about fairness, transparency, and potential bias in the development and use of {NLP} systems. The use of explainable artificial intelligence ({XAI}) techniques, such as occlusion and {LCI}, can help provide insight into the decision-making processes of {NLP} systems and identify areas for improvement. Finally, we identify areas for future research and development in this field in order to address the remaining limitations and challenges.}, author = {{Baumgartner, Nina}}, year = {2022}, langid = {english} } ``` ### Contributions Thanks to [@ninabaumgartner](https://github.com/ninabaumgartner) for adding this dataset.