Label Indeterminacy in AI & Law
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866912660066402304 |
|---|---|
| author | Steging, Cor Zbiegień, Tadeusz |
| author_facet | Steging, Cor Zbiegień, Tadeusz |
| contents | Machine learning is increasingly used in the legal domain, where it typically operates retrospectively by treating past case outcomes as ground truth. However, legal outcomes are often shaped by human interventions that are not captured in most machine learning approaches. A final decision may result from a settlement, an appeal, or other procedural actions. This creates label indeterminacy: the outcome could have been different if the intervention had or had not taken place. We argue that legal machine learning applications need to account for label indeterminacy. Methods exist that can impute these indeterminate labels, but they are all grounded in unverifiable assumptions. In the context of classifying cases from the European Court of Human Rights, we show that the way that labels are constructed during training can significantly affect model behaviour. We therefore position label indeterminacy as a relevant concern in AI & Law and demonstrate how it can shape model behaviour. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2510_17463 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Label Indeterminacy in AI & Law Steging, Cor Zbiegień, Tadeusz Artificial Intelligence Machine learning is increasingly used in the legal domain, where it typically operates retrospectively by treating past case outcomes as ground truth. However, legal outcomes are often shaped by human interventions that are not captured in most machine learning approaches. A final decision may result from a settlement, an appeal, or other procedural actions. This creates label indeterminacy: the outcome could have been different if the intervention had or had not taken place. We argue that legal machine learning applications need to account for label indeterminacy. Methods exist that can impute these indeterminate labels, but they are all grounded in unverifiable assumptions. In the context of classifying cases from the European Court of Human Rights, we show that the way that labels are constructed during training can significantly affect model behaviour. We therefore position label indeterminacy as a relevant concern in AI & Law and demonstrate how it can shape model behaviour. |
| title | Label Indeterminacy in AI & Law |
| topic | Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.17463 |