Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 54 references

LeCoPCR: Legal Concept-guided Prior Case Retrieval for European Court of Human Rights cases

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding model-generated legal concepts to query facts improves prior case retrieval, with Recall@k and MAP gains on the ECtHR-PCR benchmark for both BM25 and Longformer retrievers.

desk verdict Solid incremental method for legal concept-guided query expansion, but the mechanism isn't separated from generic expansion and the gains lack significance testing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14114 v1 pith:GJGLBQVY submitted 2025-01-23 cs.CL

T.Y.S.S. Santosh , Isaac Misael Olguín Nolasco , Matthias Grabmair This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords priorcaseretrievallegalconceptsqueryexpansiondeterminantalpointprocessweaksupervisioninformationEuropeanCourtofHumanRightssequence-to-sequencegeneration
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

The paper tries to show that prior case retrieval improves when the query is augmented with legal concepts, short noun phrases naming the principles behind a potential citation, generated from the facts of an undecided case. Because no gold concepts exist, the authors build silver labels by extracting noun phrases from the reasoning sections of already-decided cases, selecting them with a determinantal point process that rewards both relevance and diversity, and then train a text-to-text model to produce such concepts from facts alone. On the ECtHR-PCR benchmark, appending generated concepts raises Recall@k and MAP for both a lexical retriever and a neural retriever, while appending oracle concepts from the reasoning section yields much larger gains. The result matters because it shows that making the semantic intent explicit, rather than leaving the retriever to infer it, is a workable direction for legal retrieval, with concept generation quality as the main remaining bottleneck.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the determinantal point process (DPP) used for weak-supervised concept selection, with an L-ensemble kernel $L_{ij}=q_i s_{ij} q_j$ where $q_i$ is a concept's relevance score and $s_{ij}$ the cosine similarity between concept embeddings. Because $\det(L_Y)$ for a subset measures the squared volume spanned by the concept vectors, a selected set simultaneously favors high-relevance concepts and penalizes pairwise similar ones; greedy MAP inference then chooses concepts one at a time. Relevance itself is computed by masking a candidate concept from its source paragraph, taking the complement of the cosine similarity between the masked and original paragraphs, and multiplying by a position weight $\rho_i = \mathrm{softmax}(e^{1/k})$ that grows as the concept sits closer to a citation marker. This machinery defines the silver concept labels that train the generator and serve as the oracle upper bound in the paper's experiments.

What would settle it

Replace the generated concepts appended to each query with an equal number of random noun phrases drawn from the same facts; if Recall@k stays within noise of the un-augmented baselines, the concept signal is not what drives the paper's gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

LeCoPCR's central claim is that a small set of legal concepts can mediate between a case's facts and the prior cases it should cite, and that generating these concepts explicitly and adding them to the query improves retrieval recall. The authors support the claim on the ECtHR-PCR dataset by first extracting candidate concepts as noun phrases from reasoning sections, scoring their relevance through masked-paragraph similarity and proximity to citation markers, selecting a balanced subset with a determinantal point process, and then training a long-context sequence-to-sequence model to generate such concepts from the facts portion alone. At inference the generated concepts are concatenated with the facts and passed to a retriever that is otherwise unchanged; the paper reports consistent Recall@k and MAP improvements for both BM25 and Longformer, with a further gain from training the dense retriever on noisy as well as clean concepts.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the legal concepts that make a prior case relevant are adequately represented by noun phrases from the reasoning section, that masked-paragraph relevance and closeness to citation markers can rank those phrases by importance, and that a model can regenerate enough of them from the facts of a case alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, retrieval systems can be improved without manually annotated legal concepts: the silver labels come from existing case reasoning and a DPP-based filter.
  • Because the augmentation step is retriever-agnostic, the same generated concepts should improve other lexical and dense retrievers beyond the two tested.
  • The large oracle-versus-generated gap implies that better concept generators, or better ways of denoising generated concepts, should translate directly into further Recall@k gains.
  • Hybrid training with noisy concepts is a concrete recipe for making dense retrievers robust to imperfect query expansion, not just a trick for this dataset.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the facts-to-concepts training recipe should transfer to other legal corpora that separate facts from reasoning, such as those of other human-rights tribunals, provided the concept extractor and generator are retrained on local case language.
  • Editorial extension: the paper's coverage-style evaluation likely understates retrieval value; a generated concept that overlaps a reasoning section only partially can still be the phrase that matches the precedent's holding, so utility should be measured by downstream citation quality.
  • Editorial extension: because a single query can cite different precedents for different reasons, a per-citation concept generation variant could close part of the gap between generated and oracle concepts that the paper reports.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LeCoPCR, a two-stage pipeline for prior case retrieval on the ECtHR-PCR dataset. A weak-supervision stage extracts key legal concepts from the reasoning sections of existing cases via noun-phrase chunking, a Determinantal Point Process (DPP) selection step, a masked-document relevance score, and citation-proximity regularization; a LongT5 seq2seq model is then trained to generate such concepts from case facts alone. At inference, the generated concepts are concatenated with the fact description and fed to BM25 or a Longformer bi-encoder retriever. Experiments report Recall@k and MAP on a chronological split, oracle ablations over concept extraction methods, and a hybrid training variant designed to make the dense retriever robust to noisy generated concepts. The central claim is that explicitly generating legal concepts improves prior case retrieval over strong no-augmentation baselines.

Significance. If the attribution claim were established, LeCoPCR would be a practical, model-agnostic query-expansion method for legal retrieval, with a useful weak-supervision recipe for concept extraction. Strengths of the paper include the chronologically split evaluation that respects temporal realism, the oracle ablations that compare several concept extractors, and the hybrid training idea that addresses exposure bias in query augmentation. The paper is also candid about limitations such as exact-match evaluation of generated concepts, the absence of a human study, and the lack of a re-ranking stage. However, the experiments as presented do not yet rule out the possibility that the gains come from generic query expansion or uncontrolled lexical overlap, and no significance testing is provided; the central contribution is therefore plausible but not yet firmly established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 1] No confidence intervals or significance tests are reported anywhere, and the actual gains are small: for BM25, +0.68 Recall@50 and +0.24 MAP; for Longformer, +1.24 Recall@50. With 3.2k test queries and stochastic concept generation plus stochastic dense training, these differences could be within run-to-run or query-level variance. Report query-level bootstrap confidence intervals and paired significance tests for all tables, and state the number of training runs and seed variance.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Table 1] The experimental design lacks a generic query-expansion control. The augmented query is the fact description plus generated noun phrases, so any expansion method that adds reasoning-related vocabulary could improve both lexical and neural retrieval without instantiating the claimed legal-concept mechanism. Add controls matched in token count, such as RM3 expansion terms, doc2query pseudo-relevant terms, noun phrases extracted from the facts, or a factual summary generated by the same LongT5 backbone. Without such controls, the Recall@k gains in Table 1 cannot be attributed to legal-concept semantics rather than to generic vocabulary overlap.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Tables 1-2] The oracle concepts are extracted from the query's own reasoning section, which is the label-bearing section unavailable at inference time. The large gap between LeCoPCR and the oracle (BM25 Recall@50 22.52 vs. 31.26) is interpreted as headroom for better concept generation, but part of that gap may reflect access to citation labels rather than concept quality. Please quantify this effect, for example by evaluating oracle concepts extracted from facts only, or by removing the citation-proximity regularization and measuring how much of the oracle gain depends on proximity to citation markers.
  4. [Section 3.1, Table 2] The DPP ablation is not matched for selection size: DPP, MDERank, KeyBERT, TextRank, and TF-IDF likely return different numbers of concepts per query, and the number of augmentation tokens strongly affects BM25 performance. Report the average concept count for each method and either fix the number of concepts across methods or show performance as a function of concept budget. Without this, the claim that DPP selection itself is superior is confounded by the number of expansion terms.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2] There are typographical errors: 'relavance' in the Abstract and 'required to to establish precedence' in Section 2.
  2. [Table 1] The table caption reads 'RK, HT indicate Recall@k and Hybrid training respectively'; this should be 'R@k' and 'HT', and the entry '26.47' is visually merged with 'LeCoPCR-HT', making the row difficult to read.
  3. [Table 3] 'Word Cov.' and 'Concept Cov.' are not formally defined; please specify the exact-match or fuzzy-match procedure and the denominator used for coverage.
  4. [Section 3.2] The two case-study URLs are appended to case names without final punctuation, and there are line-break artifacts in case names such as 'MOLDOV A1' and 'MAGY AR'; please clean these.
  5. [Appendix A] The hybrid training setup is only described in one sentence in Section 2.2; please specify how many noisy concept samples are used per query, from which documents they are sampled, and whether they replace or supplement the golden extracted concepts.
  6. [General] No code or data release link is mentioned; if available, including a repository would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; LeCoPCR is an empirical weak-supervision pipeline evaluated on held-out citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Legal concepts are silver-labeled by extracting noun phrases from the reasoning sections of training cases, then a seq2seq model is trained to generate concepts from facts only; at test time the query consists of facts, not reasoning, and retrieval labels are the citations appearing in the held-out test reasoning. No fitted parameter or extracted concept is reused as the retrieval target. The oracle experiments use concepts extracted from the test query's own reasoning, but the paper explicitly labels these as 'oracle values, which use the extracted concepts from the reasoning section of the query case, forming the upper bound,' so this is a stated upper bound rather than a claimed prediction. The self-citation to the ECtHR-PCR dataset paper is a citation to a public, externally checkable resource, not an unverified load-bearing argument. The absence of a generic query-expansion control is a legitimate experimental-design concern about whether the gains are due to legal concepts or to generic token overlap, but it is not a case where the output is equivalent to the input by construction; it concerns the interpretation of an empirical result, not circularity. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the weak-supervision assumption that noun phrases selected from reasoning sections (via DPP with masked-document relevance and citation proximity) represent the intents behind citations, and that a seq2seq model can generate these from facts. The dataset definition treats cited cases as ground truth, which is inherited from prior work and acknowledged as biased. No new entities are postulated; the free parameters are standard retriever and training hyperparameters, plus an undisclosed concept-count hyperparameter.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of selected concepts per case = not reported
    The DPP subset size is a free hyperparameter that determines the query augmentation length; not disclosed in the paper.
  • BM25 parameters k1 and b = 1.2 and 0.75
    Chosen values, standard defaults, used for all BM25 runs.
  • Number of negatives for dense retriever = 7
    Contrastive training negatives per positive; chosen without ablation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Relevant prior cases are exactly the cases cited in the reasoning section of the query case
    Inherited from the ECtHR-PCR dataset construction (Santosh et al., 2024); the paper acknowledges selective citation bias in the limitations.
  • domain assumption Noun-phrase candidates with DPP selection capture the legal concepts that drive citation decisions
    Central to the weak supervision; DPP quality uses masked-paragraph relevance and position relative to citation markers (Section 2.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Masking a trivial concept leaves the paragraph's semantic meaning largely unchanged, so complement of masked/normal similarity measures concept relevance
    Stated in Section 2.1 as the basis for relevance scoring; not independently validated.
  • ad hoc to paper Concepts closer to citation markers are more important
    Position regularization in Section 2.1, inspired by Florescu and Caragea (2017); supported only by ablation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LeCoPCR: Legal Concept-guided Prior Case Retrieval for European Court of Human Rights cases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GJGLBQVY

@misc{pith2026250114114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LeCoPCR: Legal Concept-guided Prior Case Retrieval for European Court of Human Rights cases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GJGLBQVY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14114}
}
read the original abstract

Prior case retrieval (PCR) is crucial for legal practitioners to find relevant precedent cases given the facts of a query case. Existing approaches often overlook the underlying semantic intent in determining relevance with respect to the query case. In this work, we propose LeCoPCR, a novel approach that explicitly generate intents in the form of legal concepts from a given query case facts and then augments the query with these concepts to enhance models understanding of semantic intent that dictates relavance. To overcome the unavailability of annotated legal concepts, we employ a weak supervision approach to extract key legal concepts from the reasoning section using Determinantal Point Process (DPP) to balance quality and diversity. Experimental results on the ECtHR-PCR dataset demonstrate the effectiveness of leveraging legal concepts and DPP-based key concept extraction.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arian Askari, Suzan Verberne, O Alonso, S Marchesin, M Najork, and G Silvello. 2021. Combining lexical and neural retrieval with longformer-based summarization for effective case law retrieval. In DESIRES, pages 162--170

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Iz Beltagy, Matthew E Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05150

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Kamil Bennani-Smires, Claudiu Musat, Andreea Hossmann, Michael Baeriswyl, and Martin Jaggi. 2018. Simple unsupervised keyphrase extraction using sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 221--229

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Paheli Bhattacharya, Kripabandhu Ghosh, Arindam Pal, and Saptarshi Ghosh. 2022. Legal case document similarity: You need both network and text. Information Processing & Management, 59(6):103069

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    O'Reilly Media, Inc

    Steven Bird, Ewan Klein, and Edward Loper. 2009. Natural language processing with Python: analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. " O'Reilly Media, Inc."

    2009

  6. [6]

    Alexei Borodin. 2009. Determinantal point processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:0911.1153

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Michel CA and Wouter VAN KLEIN. 2006. Thesaurus-based retrieval of case law. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: the Nineteenth Annual Conference, volume 152, page 61. IOS Press

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Ilias Chalkidis, Manos Fergadiotis, Prodromos Malakasiotis, Nikolaos Aletras, and Ion Androutsopoulos. 2020. Legal-bert: The muppets straight out of law school. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 2898--2904

    2020

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Laming Chen, Guoxin Zhang, and Eric Zhou. 2018. Fast greedy map inference for determinantal point process to improve recommendation diversity. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31

    2018

  2. [10]

    Sangwoo Cho, Logan Lebanoff, Hassan Foroosh, and Fei Liu. 2019 a . Improving the similarity measure of determinantal point processes for extractive multi-document summarization. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Sangwoo Cho, Chen Li, Dong Yu, Hassan Foroosh, and Fei Liu. 2019 b . Multi-document summarization with determinantal point processes and contextualized representations. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization, pages 98--103

    2019

  4. [12]

    Corina Florescu and Cornelia Caragea. 2017. A position-biased pagerank algorithm for keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 31

    2017

  5. [13]

    Maarten Grootendorst. 2020. Keybert: Minimal keyword extraction with bert

    2020

  6. [14]

    Mandy Guo, Joshua Ainslie, David C Uthus, Santiago Ontanon, Jianmo Ni, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Yinfei Yang. 2022. Longt5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 724--736

    2022

  7. [15]

    Maor Ivgi, Uri Shaham, and Jonathan Berant. 2023. Efficient long-text understanding with short-text models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:284--299

    2023

  8. [16]

    Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Herv \'e J \'e gou. 2019. Billion-scale similarity search with gpus. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 7(3):535--547

    2019

  9. [17]

    Abhinav Joshi, Akshat Sharma, Sai Kiran Tanikella, and Ashutosh Modi. 2023. U-creat: Unsupervised case retrieval using events extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05260

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Yoshinobu Kano, Mi-Young Kim, Masaharu Yoshioka, Yao Lu, Juliano Rabelo, Naoki Kiyota, Randy Goebel, and Ken Satoh. 2019. Coliee-2018: Evaluation of the competition on legal information extraction and entailment. In New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence: JSAI-isAI 2018 Work...

    2019

  11. [19]

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)...

    2020

  12. [20]

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Chun-Wa Ko, Jon Lee, and Maurice Queyranne. 1995. An exact algorithm for maximum entropy sampling. Operations Research, 43(4):684--691

    1995

  14. [22]

    Alex Kulesza, Ben Taskar, et al. 2012. Determinantal point processes for machine learning. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , 5(2--3):123--286

    2012

  15. [23]

    Victor Lavrenko and W Bruce Croft. 2001. Relevance-based language models

    2001

  16. [24]

    Haitao Li, Qingyao Ai, Jia Chen, Qian Dong, Yueyue Wu, Yiqun Liu, Chong Chen, and Qi Tian. 2023. Sailer: structure-aware pre-trained language model for legal case retrieval. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Informatio...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Lei Li, Wei Liu, Marina Litvak, Natalia Vanetik, and Zuying Huang. 2019. In conclusion not repetition: Comprehensive abstractive summarization with diversified attention based on determinantal point processes. In Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Lang...

    2019

  18. [26]

    Linqing Liu, Minghan Li, Jimmy Lin, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2022. Query expansion using contextual clue sampling with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07093

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Daniel Locke and Guido Zuccon. 2022. Case law retrieval: problems, methods, challenges and evaluations in the last 20 years. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07209

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Alfredo L \'o pez Monroy, Hiram Calvo, Alexander Gelbukh, and Georgina Garc \' a Pacheco. 2013. Link analysis for representing and retrieving legal information. In International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics, pages 380--393. Springer

    2013

  21. [29]

    Yixiao Ma, Yunqiu Shao, Yueyue Wu, Yiqun Liu, Ruizhe Zhang, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2021. Lecard: a legal case retrieval dataset for chinese law system. In Proceedings of the 44th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, page...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Yixiao Ma, Yueyue Wu, Qingyao Ai, Yiqun Liu, Yunqiu Shao, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2023. Incorporating structural information into legal case retrieval. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 42(2):1--28

    2023

  23. [31]

    Arpan Mandal, Kripabandhu Ghosh, Arnab Bhattacharya, Arindam Pal, and Saptarshi Ghosh. 2017. Overview of the fire 2017 irled track: Information retrieval from legal documents. In FIRE (Working Notes), pages 63--68

    2017

  24. [32]

    Rada Mihalcea and Paul Tarau. 2004. Textrank: Bringing order into text. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 404--411

    2004

  25. [33]

    Akshay Minocha, Navjyoti Singh, and Arjit Srivastava. 2015. Finding relevant indian judgments using dispersion of citation network. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 1085--1088

    2015

  26. [34]

    Poojitha Nandigam, Nikhil Rayaprolu, and Manish Shrivastava. 2022. Diverse multi-answer retrieval with determinantal point processes. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2220--2225

    2022

  27. [35]

    Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, and Michael Taylor. 2004. Simple bm25 extension to multiple weighted fields. In Proceedings of the thirteenth ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 42--49

    2004

  28. [36]

    Joseph John Rocchio Jr. 1971. Relevance feedback in information retrieval. The SMART retrieval system: experiments in automatic document processing

    1971

  29. [37]

    Juline Rossi and Evangelos Kanoulas. 2019. Legal information retrieval with generalized language models. Proceedings of the 6th Competition on Legal Information Extraction/Entailment. KanoE

    2019

  30. [38]

    T.Y.S.S Santosh, Rashid Gustav Haddad, and Matthias Grabmair. 2024. Ecthr-pcr: A dataset for precedent understanding and prior case retrieval in the european court of human rights. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Manavalan Saravanan, Balaraman Ravindran, and Shivani Raman. 2009. Improving legal information retrieval using an ontological framework. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 17:101--124

    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]

    Aidean Sharghi, Jacob S Laurel, and Boqing Gong. 2017. Query-focused video summarization: Dataset, evaluation, and a memory network based approach. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4788--4797

    2017

  34. [42]

    Vu Tran, Minh Le Nguyen, and Ken Satoh. 2019. Building legal case retrieval systems with lexical matching and summarization using a pre-trained phrase scoring model. In Proceedings of the seventeenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 275--282

    2019

  35. [43]

    Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis and Nikolaos Aletras. 2021. On the ethical limits of natural language processing on legal text. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 3590--3599

    2021

  36. [44]

    Howard Turtle. 1995. Text retrieval in the legal world. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3:5--54

    1995

  37. [45]

    Marc Van Opijnen and Cristiana and Santos. 2017. On the concept of relevance in legal information retrieval. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25:65--87

    2017

  38. [46]

    Mark Wilhelm, Ajith Ramanathan, Alexander Bonomo, Sagar Jain, Ed H Chi, and Jennifer Gillenwater. 2018. Practical diversified recommendations on youtube with determinantal point processes. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Man...

    2018

  39. [47]

    Chaojun Xiao, Xueyu Hu, Zhiyuan Liu, Cunchao Tu, and Maosong Sun. 2021. Lawformer: A pre-trained language model for chinese legal long documents. AI Open, 2:79--84

    2021

  40. [48]

    Chaojun Xiao, Haoxi Zhong, Zhipeng Guo, Cunchao Tu, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Tianyang Zhang, Xianpei Han, Zhen Hu, Heng Wang, et al. 2019. Cail2019-scm: A dataset of similar case matching in legal domain. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.08962

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Yiming Zeng, Ruili Wang, John Zeleznikow, and Elizabeth Kemp. 2005. Knowledge representation for the intelligent legal case retrieval. In International Conference on Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, pages 339--345. Springer

    2005

  42. [50]

    Ke Zhang, Wei-Lun Chao, Fei Sha, and Kristen Grauman. 2016. Video summarization with long short-term memory. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11--14, 2016, Proceedings, Part VII 14, pages 766--782. Springer

    2016

  43. [51]

    Linhan Zhang, Qian Chen, Wen Wang, Chong Deng, ShiLiang Zhang, Bing Li, Wei Wang, and Xin Cao. 2022. Mderank: A masked document embedding rank approach for unsupervised keyphrase extraction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 396--409

    2022

  44. [52]

    Youchao Zhou, Heyan Huang, and Zhijing Wu. 2023. Boosting legal case retrieval by query content selection with large language models. In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval in the Asia Pacific Region...

    2023

  45. [53]

    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...

  46. [54]

    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 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.