TITLE: A Survey on Legal Judgment Prediction: Datasets, Metrics, Models and Challenges 

ABSTRACT: Legal judgment prediction (LJP) applies Natural Language Processing (NLP)
techniques to predict judgment results based on fact descriptions
automatically. Recently, large-scale public datasets and advances in NLP
research have led to increasing interest in LJP. Despite a clear gap between
machine and human performance, impressive results have been achieved in various
benchmark datasets. In this paper, to address the current lack of comprehensive
survey of existing LJP tasks, datasets, models and evaluations, (1) we analyze
31 LJP datasets in 6 languages, present their construction process and define a
classification method of LJP with 3 different attributes; (2) we summarize 14
evaluation metrics under four categories for different outputs of LJP tasks;
(3) we review 12 legal-domain pretrained models in 3 languages and highlight 3
major research directions for LJP; (4) we show the state-of-art results for 8
representative datasets from different court cases and discuss the open
challenges. This paper can provide up-to-date and comprehensive reviews to help
readers understand the status of LJP. We hope to facilitate both NLP
researchers and legal professionals for further joint efforts in this problem.
Legal judgment prediction (LJP) applies Natural Language Processing (NLP)
techniques to predict judgment results based on fact descriptions
automatically. Recently, large-scale public datasets and advances in NLP
research have led to increasing interest in LJP. Despite a clear gap between
machine and human performance, impressive results have been achieved in various
benchmark datasets. In this paper, to address the current lack of comprehensive
survey of existing LJP tasks, datasets, models and evaluations, (1) we analyze
31 LJP datasets in 6 languages, present their construction process and define a
classification method of LJP with 3 different attributes; (2) we summarize 14
evaluation metrics under four categories for different outputs of LJP tasks;
(3) we review 12 legal-domain pretrained models in 3 languages and highlight 3
major research directions for LJP; (4) we show the state-of-art results for 8
representative datasets from different court cases and discuss the open
challenges. This paper can provide up-to-date and comprehensive reviews to help
readers understand the status of LJP. We hope to facilitate both NLP
researchers and legal professionals for further joint efforts in this problem.
A Survey on Legal Judgment Prediction: Datasets, Metrics, Models and Challenges
http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.04859v1