Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

CLERC: A Dataset for Legal Case Retrieval and Retrieval-Augmented Analysis Generation

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

arxiv 2406.17186 v2 pith:CRT6U5PT submitted 2024-06-24 cs.CL cs.CY

classification cs.CLcs.CY
keywords legalanalysiscasecitationsclercdatasetmodelsprofessionals
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Legal professionals need to write analyses that rely on citations to relevant precedents, i.e., previous case decisions. Intelligent systems assisting legal professionals in writing such documents provide great benefits but are challenging to design. Such systems need to help locate, summarize, and reason over salient precedents in order to be useful. To enable systems for such tasks, we work with legal professionals to transform a large open-source legal corpus into a dataset supporting two important backbone tasks: information retrieval (IR) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). This dataset CLERC (Case Law Evaluation Retrieval Corpus), is constructed for training and evaluating models on their ability to (1) find corresponding citations for a given piece of legal analysis and to (2) compile the text of these citations (as well as previous context) into a cogent analysis that supports a reasoning goal. We benchmark state-of-the-art models on CLERC, showing that current approaches still struggle: GPT-4o generates analyses with the highest ROUGE F-scores but hallucinates the most, while zero-shot IR models only achieve 48.3% recall@1000.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. How Can AI Augment Access to Justice? Public Defenders' Perspectives on AI Adoption

    cs.CY 2025-10 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Public defenders view AI as most useful for evidence investigation but limited in courtroom work and strategy, with adoption blocked by costs, confidentiality risks, and norms, requiring human oversight and open development.

  2. CPA-RAG:Covert Poisoning Attacks on Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Large Language Models

    cs.CR 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A black-box poisoning framework, CPA-RAG, generates fluent fake documents that steer retrieval-augmented language models toward attacker-chosen wrong answers, achieving over 90% success in the reported experiments.

  3. Assessing the Performance Gap Between Lexical and Semantic Models for Information Retrieval With Formulaic Legal Language

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    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.

  4. ASP2LJ : An Adversarial Self-Play Laywer Augmented Legal Judgment Framework

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    ASP2LJ combines synthetic case generation with adversarial self-play for lawyer agents, improving legal judgment prediction on a Chinese benchmark and on a new rare-case dataset.

Pith tools