REVIEW 6 cited by
Case law retrieval: problems, methods, challenges and evaluations in the last 20 years
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Case law retrieval is the retrieval of judicial decisions relevant to a legal question. Case law retrieval comprises a significant amount of a lawyer's time, and is important to ensure accurate advice and reduce workload. We survey methods for case law retrieval from the past 20 years and outline the problems and challenges facing evaluation of case law retrieval systems going forward. Limited published work has focused on improving ranking in ad-hoc case law retrieval. But there has been significant work in other areas of case law retrieval, and legal information retrieval generally. This is likely due to legal search providers being unwilling to give up the secrets of their success to competitors. Most evaluations of case law retrieval have been undertaken on small collections and focus on related tasks such as question-answer systems or recommender systems. Work has not focused on Cranfield style evaluations and baselines of methods for case law retrieval on publicly available test collections are not present. This presents a major challenge going forward. But there are reasons to question the extent of this problem, at least in a commercial setting. Without test collections to baseline approaches it cannot be known whether methods are promising. Works by commercial legal search providers show the effectiveness of natural language systems as well as query expansion for case law retrieval. Machine learning is being applied to more and more legal search tasks, and undoubtedly this represents the future of case law retrieval.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
AI for Statutory Simplification: A Comprehensive State Legal Corpus and Labor Benchmark
State-of-the-art LLMs with retrieval answer simplified boolean questions about state unemployment insurance law with at best 0.69 F1, well short of reliable end-to-end code simplification.
-
LegalPincite: Multi-level Legal Information Retrieval Dataset
A multi-level legal IR dataset from CJEU judgments with masked queries, full paragraph corpora, and case/paragraph citation labels.
-
Generative Chinese Statute Retrieval
A generative retriever with multi-granularity structured statute IDs and multi-task training outperforms strong sparse, dense, and legal baselines on the STARD Chinese statute benchmark.
-
LLMs for LLMs: A Structured Prompting Methodology for Long Legal Documents
On CUAD legal contracts, a prompt-engineered QWEN-2 pipeline with chunking and two answer-selection heuristics reportedly outperforms the fine-tuned DeBERTa-large baseline by about 9%, reaching claimed state-of-the-ar...
-
Assessing the Performance Gap Between Lexical and Semantic Models for Information Retrieval With Formulaic Legal Language
On CJEU paragraph retrieval, BM25 beats off-the-shelf dense models on most metrics, fine-tuned dense models beat BM25, and BM25 wins mainly when queries have less verbatim overlap with the target.
-
L-MARS: Legal Multi-Agent System with Agentic Search and Citation-Faithfulness Audit
The abstract reports that a judge-driven multi-agent loop improves legal-citation faithfulness from 0.13 to 0.25 strict F1 and cuts the no-citation rate from 34% to 13%, but the provided manuscript text does not conta...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.