Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 52 references

A Method for Detecting Legal Article Competition for Korean Criminal Law Using a Case-augmented Mention Graph

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A graph-based retriever with LLM-generated cases detects competing Korean criminal law articles, cutting false positives by 20.8% and improving precision@5 by 98.2%.

desk verdict A serious new-task paper with a plausible method, but its headline metrics rest on an unvalidated ground-truth definition and a single self-implemented baseline; worth refereeing, but only with demands for stronger evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11787 v1 pith:TNRXZP4Y submitted 2024-12-16 cs.CL cs.AIcs.IRcs.LG

Seonho An , Young Yik Rhim , Min-Soo Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.IRcs.LG
keywords LegalArticleCompetitionDetectionKoreancriminallawretrieve-then-rerankgraphneuralnetworkmentionLLM-generatedcasesinformationretrievalcaseaugmentation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper defines a new legal AI task, Legal Article Competition Detection (LACD): given a legal article, return the articles that compete with it, meaning that both could apply to the same case but prescribe different punishments. It argues that standard document-retrieval models fail at this task for two reasons: textually similar articles may not be legally related, and interpreting an article often requires definitions cited in other articles. The proposed solution, CAM-Re2, is a retrieve-then-rerank retriever that represents every article together with an LLM-generated illustrative case and propagates representations along explicit mention links with a graph neural network. The paper reports that on a Korean criminal law dataset this method reduces false positives by 20.8%, false negatives by 8.3%, and raises precision@5 by 98.2% relative to a naive retrieve-then-rerank baseline. If correct, this gives law drafters and prosecutors an automated way to catch competitions before they cause contradictory judgments.

What carries the argument

The central object is CAMGraph, a graph whose nodes are pairs (article, LLM-generated case) and whose undirected edges are mention relationships: an edge connects two articles if one explicitly cites the other by article number. The mechanism that carries the argument is CAM-Re2, a retrieve-then-rerank pipeline in which a bi-encoder maps each node into a vector space, top-k nodes are selected by cosine similarity, and a graph neural network (GATv2) propagates embeddings along mention edges before a cross-encoder computes the probability that the query article competes with each candidate. Case augmentation supplies contextual scenarios for articles that lack real court cases, and the mention graph supplies definitional context that may live several hops away, such as a term defined in one act and interpreted through an enforcement decree.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of article pairs from the LACD dataset and have independent Korean criminal law experts label them as competing or not under standard doctrine, without seeing the paper's Definition-2 labels; if expert agreement with the dataset labels is low, especially on pairs the paper calls competing, the reported precision gains would not reflect legally useful retrieval. A second check: perturb the mention edges in CAMGraph by swapping them with random article pairs and measure precision@5; if the retriever still performs well, the mention graph is not the source of the improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that legal article competition can be detected as a retrieval problem, and that the retrieval is substantially improved by representing each article as a node augmented with a generated case and by letting the retriever reason over a graph of 'mention' relationships between articles. The authors formalize competition as two rules with different punishments where one rule's set of propositions contains the other's, and build a dataset of 293 competing and 2,046 non-competing article pairs for Korean law. CAM-Re2 first encodes each article together with its LLM-generated case, selects top candidates by cosine similarity, and then uses a two-layer GATv2 over the CAMGraph plus a cross-encoder to score competition. In their experiments this configuration outperformed the same retriever without case augmentation and graph propagation, with the largest gains coming from the Step 1 node encoding. The 98.2% precision@5 improvement is reported on the full retrieval pipeline, while F1 gains of 3.7-9.6 percentage points are reported for the reranking step alone.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that two articles compete exactly when one article contains a rule whose propositions are a subset of the other rule's propositions and the two rules prescribe different punishments; every reported performance number is measured against labels created from this formalization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported gains hold, legal article competition detection becomes a practical retrieval task for law drafters: a newly drafted article can be checked against the existing corpus before enactment.
  • The method implies that LLM-generated cases can substitute for scarce real case law when representing legal provisions, at least for criminal law in Korean.
  • Explicit mention relationships between statutes, not just surface text similarity, are a usable signal for legal reasoning and improve retrieval when propagated by a GNN.
  • The public LACD dataset provides a benchmark for future work on legal article competition in Korean criminal law.
  • The three cross-encoders tested all improve over the naive baseline, suggesting the gains are not tied to one language model.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same CAMGraph recipe may transfer to other legal domains, but the paper only validates Korean criminal law; whether mention-edge density and LLM-case quality are sufficient elsewhere is untested.
  • Because the paper found real court cases underperformed generated cases, a possible explanation worth testing is that synthetic cases act as a regularizer; a direct comparison on more articles would show whether that holds.
  • The formal Definition 2 equates competition with punishment difference plus proposition-set inclusion; legal systems that treat speciality or subsidiarity relations without punishment differences as competitions would require label changes.
  • An even simpler test of the mechanism is to replace real mention edges with random edges and measure precision@5: if the graph structure is what matters, random edges should erase most of the gain.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a new legal AI task, Legal Article Competition Detection (LACD), which aims to retrieve articles of Korean criminal law that compete with a given query article. The authors construct a dataset of 2,339 labeled article pairs, a graph representation called CAMGraph with 192,974 nodes and 339,666 edges that augments articles with LLM-generated cases and mention edges, and a retrieve-then-rerank method CAM-Re2 that uses a bi-encoder, a GNN over CAMGraph, and a cross-encoder. The paper reports that CAM-Re2 reduces false positives by 20.8%, false negatives by 8.3%, and improves precision@5 by 98.2% relative to a self-implemented 'Naïve Re2' baseline. The central claim is that case augmentation and mention-graph propagation substantially improve legal article competition retrieval.

Significance. If the results withstand scrutiny, the paper would make several useful contributions: a new task definition (LACD) with a dedicated dataset, a practical way to address the null-case problem via LLM-generated case augmentation, a large-scale mention-graph resource for Korean law, and a retrieve-then-rerank architecture that integrates graph reasoning. The paper includes several useful ablations (GNN architectures, real vs. generated cases, multi-case training) that help identify which components drive the reported gains on the authors' dataset. The code is publicly released. However, the current evaluation limits the significance of the claimed advantages: the ground-truth labels rest on a formal definition of competition that is not validated with a rigorous annotation protocol, the only baseline is internal, and the reported metrics lack variance information. As a result, the paper's headline numbers are not yet convincing evidence that CAM-Re2 is superior to existing legal retrieval methods in practice.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1 and Definition 2 (Section 2.1)] The ground-truth labels for the LACD dataset are derived from Definition 2, which defines competition as a strict subsumption relation (one rule's proposition set includes the other) plus differing punishments. This formalization may exclude legally recognized competition types such as subsidiarity, consumption, or conflicts between rules with equal punishments. The paper's only external validation is the statement in Section 4.1 that 'nearly 94% of the pairs align with real-world competitions,' with no inter-annotator agreement, no detailed annotation protocol, and no analysis of the remaining 6% disagreement. Because all reported FP, FN, and precision@5 metrics are computed against these binary labels, the central empirical claim is only an advantage on the authors' proxy task; the paper does not demonstrate that the proxy matches how legal experts or courts would identify competing articles.
  2. [Section 5 and Abstract] The only comparator in the experiments is a self-implemented 'Naïve Re2' baseline built on the same backbones. The abstract claims CAM-Re2 'outperforms existing relevant methods,' but the paper does not compare against any published legal article retrieval system (e.g., Lesicin, G-DSR, or standard retrievers like BM25 or DPR) or any prior method for legal conflict detection. In addition, the abstract's headline numbers ('20.8% fewer false positives, 8.3% fewer false negatives') do not match the experimental section: Section 5.2 reports a 29.6% FP reduction and 7.7% FN reduction for top-1 and a 17.28% FP reduction for top-5, with no statement of which configuration or threshold produces the abstract's figures. The key quantitative claim is therefore not reproducible from the paper as written.
  3. [Section 4.3 and Tables 5-7, Figure 5] All reported results are averages over three seeds, but no standard deviations or statistical significance tests are provided. The test set contains only 63 positive pairs, so differences such as the F1 improvement from 48.9 to 58.5 in Table 5 could plausibly be within seed-level variation. Reporting standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests is necessary to support the claim that CAM-Re2's improvements are systematic rather than incidental.
  4. [Section 3.3 and Section 4.1] The LACD dataset was constructed using criteria based on mention relationships and membership in crime-related acts, while CAM-Re2's Step 3 applies a GNN exactly over the mention graph. This creates a potential shortcut: the model may exploit mention connectivity that is also embedded in the label construction, rather than benefiting from case augmentation or graph reasoning per se. An ablation that restricts evaluation to pairs not directly connected by mention edges, or that provides an equivalent mention context to the baseline, would be needed to attribute the observed improvement to the proposed components. Without such an analysis, the source of the reported gains is not fully identified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A.1.2, Example A.2] The sentence 'Criminal Act 201 overrides Criminal Act 201' appears to be a typo and should likely read 'Criminal Act 205 overrides Criminal Act 201' (or the reverse); the current wording is self-contradictory and interrupts the explanation of the lex specialis principle.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The caption as typeset reads '(b) Select top 5 articles in Step 3 (a) Select a top 1 article in Step 3', which reverses the order presented in the text. The caption should clearly match the subfigure labels used in Section 5.2.
  3. [Table 10 (Appendix A.4)] In the 'multi C1' row, the value '44.491.0' appears to be a formatting error and should likely be '44.4' and '91.0' as separate F1/accuracy entries.
  4. [Section 5.4] The sentence 'CAM-Re2 with GATv2 overall achieves the best F1 score of 58.5% and the second best accuracies of 56.7% and 89.4%' is unclear: 56.7% is not an accuracy value in Table 7 for the GATv2 row. Please revise this sentence to accurately report the F1 and accuracy values for each architecture.
  5. [Section 1 (Introduction)] The statement 'no method for detecting such competitions has been proposed so far' is too strong given that the paper itself cites Araszkiewicz et al. (2021) on identification of contradictions in regulation. The novelty claim should be qualified by a brief discussion of how LACD differs from prior work on legal conflict and contradiction detection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported gains are measured on a held-out test split of the authors' manually labeled LACD dataset, and the task definition is an input assumption rather than a derived result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison on a held-out test set, not a derivation from its own assumptions. Definition 2 formalizes 'competition' and is used to guide dataset construction; the resulting pairs were manually labeled and checked by legal experts, and the F1/accuracy/precision@5 numbers are computed on a test portion that was not used for training or early stopping (Section 4.3). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no 'uniqueness theorem' or equivalent result is imported from the authors' prior work. The use of LLM-generated cases, mention edges, and GNNs is evaluated through ablations against the same base encoders, which is a standard architectural comparison. The single self-citation (Lee et al. 2024, PlanRAG) appears in a general list of related work and is not load-bearing. Concerns that the simplified legal definition of competition may not match expert doctrine, or that the dataset lacks an independent third-party benchmark, are external-validity or correctness risks, not circularity; the paper's own Limitations section acknowledges the single-domain and pairwise-only scope. Under the rules requiring a specific reduction by definition or fit, no circular step can be quoted.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central evaluation rests on the authors' own definition of legal competition, their own LACD labels, and an LLM-generated case graph. There are no external benchmarks or real-world court outcomes used to validate the detected competitions. The listed free parameters are standard retrieval hyperparameters, but several (theta, k, number of generated cases) affect the reported FP/FN numbers.

free parameters (4)
  • retrieval threshold theta (Step 3) = not reported
    The final retrieval set is determined by p(aq, ai) > theta; theta is not specified, so it was presumably tuned on the validation set and affects all headline FP/FN numbers.
  • top-k neighborhood size k = 10
    Used in Step 2 to select candidates; Figure 5 results use k = 10, so the precision@5 metric is computed over a fixed candidate window.
  • number of LLM-generated cases per article for bi-encoder training = 2
    Appendix A.4 compares one versus three cases and shows multi-case training helps; the authors choose two, a hand-picked compromise.
  • LLM temperature for case generation = 0.7
    gpt-4o-mini is called with temperature 0.7; the sampled cases are not released, so the exact inputs to the retriever are not reproducible.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Legal competition between articles is fully captured by Definition 2: two rules compete if and only if their punishments differ and one proposition set includes the other.
    Section 2.1 Definition 2. This formalization excludes other kinds of normative conflicts (procedural, definitional, hierarchical) and is used to construct the LACD ground truth, so the benchmark inherits this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper GPT-4o-mini generated cases are faithful, diverse, and unbiased enough to stand in for real legal cases.
    Section 3.2 uses LMcase(ai) for every article, including real-case articles; Section 9 acknowledges hallucination and demographic bias risks. No quality audit of generated cases is reported.
  • domain assumption The mention-relationship graph crawled from the Ministry of Government Legislation is complete and accurately reflects statutory cross-references as of September 30, 2024.
    Section 3.2 builds edges from official templates; any crawl errors or missing links propagate directly into the GNN aggregations.
  • ad hoc to paper The manual labels assigned by the authors and 'validated by legal experts' at 94% agreement are reliable ground truth.
    Section 4.1 reports only the agreement rate; no inter-annotator agreement measure, number of experts, or label adjudication protocol is given.
  • domain assumption The acts listed in the Korean Bar Exam guidelines define the scope of 'acts about crimes' for candidate pair collection.
    Section 4.1, criterion 2 and Appendix A.5. This scope restriction biases the dataset toward commonly tested criminal statutes.
invented entities (1)
  • Case-Augmented Mention Graph (CAMGraph)
    purpose: A graph where each article node is paired with an LLM-generated case and edges encode statutory mention relationships; it is the retrieval index and the source of GNN node features.
    CAMGraph is a constructed data structure with no external validation. Its usefulness is measured only on the authors' own LACD benchmark, so it does not provide an independently falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Method for Detecting Legal Article Competition for Korean Criminal Law Using a Case-augmented Mention Graph." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TNRXZP4Y

@misc{pith2026241211787,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Method for Detecting Legal Article Competition for Korean Criminal Law Using a Case-augmented Mention Graph},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TNRXZP4Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11787}
}
read the original abstract

As social systems become increasingly complex, legal articles are also growing more intricate, making it progressively harder for humans to identify any potential competitions among them, particularly when drafting new laws or applying existing laws. Despite this challenge, no method for detecting such competitions has been proposed so far. In this paper, we propose a new legal AI task called Legal Article Competition Detection (LACD), which aims to identify competing articles within a given law. Our novel retrieval method, CAM-Re2, outperforms existing relevant methods, reducing false positives by 20.8% and false negatives by 8.3%, while achieving a 98.2% improvement in precision@5, for the LACD task. We release our codes at https://github.com/asmath472/LACD-public.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11787 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of competing legal articles in Re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The example of CAMGraph. Blue and yellow boxes mean articles and corresponding LLM-generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LACD results of (a) the naïve Re2 retriever and (b) our CAM-Re2 retriever. The query, Act on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of CAM-Re2 (purple is the query [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance across all Steps (Qwen2.0 is used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Micha Araszkiewicz, Enrico Francesconi, and Tomasz Zurek. 2021. Identification of contradictions in regulation. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, pages 151--160. IOS Press

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, Jackson Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, et al. 2022. Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Paheli Bhattacharya, Kripabandhu Ghosh, Arindam Pal, and Saptarshi Ghosh. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397271.3401191 Hier-spcnet: A legal statute hierarchy-based heterogeneous network for computing legal case document similarity . In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '...

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Michael J Bommarito II and Daniel M Katz. 2010. A mathematical approach to the study of the united states code. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 389(19):4195--4200

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Shaked Brody, Uri Alon, and Eran Yahav. 2022. https://openreview.net/forum?id=F72ximsx7C1 How attentive are graph attention networks? In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022 . OpenReview.net

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin...

    2020

  7. [7]

    Corinna Coupette, Janis Beckedorf, Dirk Hartung, Michael Bommarito, and Daniel Martin Katz. 2021. Measuring law over time: A network analytical framework with an application to statutes and regulations in the united states and germany. Frontiers in Physics, 9:658463

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Wentao Deng, Jiahuan Pei, Keyi Kong, Zhe Chen, Furu Wei, Yujun Li, Zhaochun Ren, Zhumin Chen, and Pengjie Ren. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.864 Syllogistic reasoning for legal judgment analysis . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 13997--14009, Singapore. Association for Co...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.864 2023

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al - Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, Anirudh Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Aobo Yang, Archi Mitra, Archie Sravankumar, Artem Korenev, Arthur Hinsvark, Arun Rao, Aston Z...

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024 b . The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Yi Feng, Chuanyi Li, and Vincent Ng. 2022 a . Legal judgment prediction: A survey of the state of the art. In IJCAI, pages 5461--5469

    2022

  4. [12]

    Yi Feng, Chuanyi Li, and Vincent Ng. 2022 b . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.48 Legal judgment prediction via event extraction with constraints . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), page...

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Michael Glass, Gaetano Rossiello, Md Faisal Mahbub Chowdhury, Ankita Naik, Pengshan Cai, and Alfio Gliozzo. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.194 R e2 G : Retrieve, rerank, generate . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the As...

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec

    William L. Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/hash/5dd9db5e033da9c6fb5ba83c7a7ebea9-Abstract.html Inductive representation learning on large graphs . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conferen...

    2017

  7. [15]

    Nils Holzenberger, Andrew Blair-Stanek, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2020. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:218581117 A dataset for statutory reasoning in tax law entailment and question answering . In NLLP@KDD

    2020

  8. [16]

    Wenyue Hua, Xianjun Yang, Mingyu Jin, Zelong Li, Wei Cheng, Ruixiang Tang, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2024. Trustagent: Towards safe and trustworthy llm-based agents. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pages 10000--10016

    2024

  9. [17]

    Wonseok Hwang, Dongjun Lee, Kyoungyeon Cho, Hanuhl Lee, and Minjoon Seo. 2022. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/file/d15abd14d5894eebd185b756541d420e-Paper-Datasets_and_Benchmarks.pdf A multi-task benchmark for korean legal language understanding and judge...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Zhengbao Jiang, Frank Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.495 Active retrieval augmented generation . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in...

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.550 Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empiric...

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Daniel Martin Katz, Corinna Coupette, Janis Beckedorf, and Dirk Hartung. 2020. Complex societies and the growth of the law. Scientific reports, 10(1):18737

    2020

  13. [21]

    Minju Kim, Haein Jung, and Myoung-Wan Koo. 2024. Self-expertise: Knowledge-based instruction dataset augmentation for a legal expert language model. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, pages 1098--1112

    2024

  14. [22]

    Seong-Don Kim. 2005. Fallgruppen der gesetzeskonkurrenz und ihre bewertungsmethode. Korean Lawyers Association Journal, 54(1):29--67

    2005

  15. [23]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980 Adam: A method for stochastic optimization . In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Kipf and Max Welling

    Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 2017. https://openreview.net/forum?id=SJU4ayYgl Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks . In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Procee...

    2017

  17. [25]

    Myeonghwa Lee, Seonho An, and Min-Soo Kim. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.364 P lan RAG : A plan-then-retrieval augmented generation for generative large language models as decision makers . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter...

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Yifei Liu, Yiquan Wu, Yating Zhang, Changlong Sun, Weiming Lu, Fei Wu, and Kun Kuang. 2023. Ml-ljp: multi-law aware legal judgment prediction. In Proceedings of the 46th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, pages 1023--1034

    2023

  19. [27]

    Antoine Louis and Gerasimos Spanakis. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.468 A statutory article retrieval dataset in F rench . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6789--6803, Du...

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    Antoine Louis, Gijs van Dijck, and Gerasimos Spanakis. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.203 Finding the law: Enhancing statutory article retrieval via graph neural networks . In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for C...

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Antoine Louis, Gijs van Dijck, and Gerasimos Spanakis. 2024. Interpretable long-form legal question answering with retrieval-augmented large language models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 22266--22275

    2024

  22. [30]

    Shengjie Ma, Chong Chen, Qi Chu, and Jiaxin Mao. 2024. Leveraging large language models for relevance judgments in legal case retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18405

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Yuning Mao, Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Yelong Shen, Jianfeng Gao, Jiawei Han, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.316 Generation-augmented retrieval for open-domain question answering . In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association ...

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Ministry of Government Legislation . 2023. https://www.moleg.go.kr/menu.es?mid=a10105030000 Standards for legislative drafting and review . Accessed: 2024-12-15

    2023

  25. [33]

    Rodrigo Nogueira and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Passage re-ranking with bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.04085

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    OpenAI. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2303.08774 GPT-4 technical report . CoRR, abs/2303.08774

    2023 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    Jangwon Park and Donggyu Kim. 2021. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5654154 Kobigbird: Pretrained bigbird model for korean

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Shounak Paul, Rajas Bhatt, Pawan Goyal, and Saptarshi Ghosh. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3626772.3657879 Legal statute identification: A case study using state-of-the-art datasets and methods . In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Dev...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Shounak Paul, Pawan Goyal, and Saptarshi Ghosh. 2022. Lesicin: A heterogeneous graph-based approach for automatic legal statute identification from indian legal documents. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 36, pages 11139--11146

    2022

  30. [38]

    Weicong Qin, Zelin Cao, Weijie Yu, Zihua Si, Sirui Chen, and Jun Xu. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3626772.3657717 Explicitly integrating judgment prediction with legal document retrieval: A law-guided generative approach . In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Co...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval , 3(4):333--389

    2009

  32. [40]

    Yunqiu Shao, Jiaxin Mao, Yiqun Liu, Weizhi Ma, Ken Satoh, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2020. Bert-pli: Modeling paragraph-level interactions for legal case retrieval. In IJCAI, pages 3501--3507

    2020

  33. [41]

    EuiYul Song, Sangryul Kim, Haeju Lee, Joonkee Kim, and James Thorne. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-eacl.27 Re3val: Reinforced and reranked generative retrieval . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2024, pages 393--409, St. Julian ...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Zhongxiang Sun, Jun Xu, Xiao Zhang, Zhenhua Dong, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. Law article-enhanced legal case matching: A causal learning approach. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 1549--1558

    2023

  35. [43]

    Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.557 Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of th...

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi

    Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.754 Self-instruct: Aligning language models with self-generated instructions . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Mee...

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.519 Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Langu...

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    Nuo Xu, Pinghui Wang, Long Chen, Li Pan, Xiaoyan Wang, and Junzhou Zhao. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.280 Distinguish confusing law articles for legal judgment prediction . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lingui...

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, et al. 2024. Qwen2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10671

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Dong-Ho Yoon. 2005. Grundforschung zur reform der sonderstrafgesetzbuche. Korean Institute of Criminology and Justice, pages 9--282

    2005

  41. [49]

    Linan Yue, Qi Liu, Binbin Jin, Han Wu, Kai Zhang, Yanqing An, Mingyue Cheng, Biao Yin, and Dayong Wu. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3404835.3462826 Neurjudge: A circumstance-aware neural framework for legal judgment prediction . In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIG...

    2021

  42. [50]

    Fangwei Zhu, Jifan Yu, Hailong Jin, Lei Hou, Juanzi Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.690 Learn to not link: Exploring NIL prediction in entity linking . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 10846-...

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    URL: " 'urlintro :=

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before...

  44. [52]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.