mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

An energy-based comparative analysis of common approaches to text classification in the Legal domain

arXiv 2311.01256 ↗First posted 2 Nov 2023cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Most Machine Learning research evaluates the best solutions in terms of performance. However, in the race for the best performing model, many important aspects are often overlooked when, on the contrary, they should be carefully considered. In fact, sometimes the gaps in performance between different approaches are neglectable, whereas factors such as production costs, energy consumption, and carbon footprint must take into consideration. Large Language Models (LLMs) are extensively adopted to address NLP problems in academia and industry. In this work, we present a detailed quantitative comparison of LLM and traditional approaches (e.g. SVM) on the LexGLUE benchmark, which takes into account both performance (standard indices) and alternative metrics such as timing, power consumption and cost, in a word: the carbon-footprint. In our analysis, we considered the prototyping phase (model selection by training-validation-test iterations) and in-production phases separately, since they follow different implementation procedures and also require different resources. The results indicate that very often, the simplest algorithms achieve performance very close to that of large LLMs but with very low power consumption and lower resource demands. The results obtained could suggest companies to include additional evaluations in the choice of Machine Learning (ML) solutions.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Nov 2023.

Builds on

12 of 24 references.

References · 12

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  2. 2019DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lightercited by 4,307
  3. 2019Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLPcited by 1,254
  4. 2017To prune, or not to prune: exploring the efficacy of pruning for model compressioncited by 603
  5. 2019Quantifying the Carbon Emissions of Machine Learningcited by 521
  6. 2015Deep Learning with Limited Numerical Precisioncited by 376
  7. 2021LexGLUE: A Benchmark Dataset for Legal Language Understanding in Englishcited by 310
  8. 2019Tackling Climate Change with Machine Learningcited by 265
  9. 2019Neural Legal Judgment Prediction in Englishcited by 209
  10. 2021MultiEURLEX -- A multi-lingual and multi-label legal document classification dataset for zero-shot cross-lingual transfercited by 90
  11. 2018CLAUDETTE: an Automated Detector of Potentially Unfair Clauses in Online Terms of Servicecited by 73
  12. 2019Energy Usage Reports: Environmental awareness as part of algorithmic accountabilitycited by 44

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.