REVIEW 3 cited by
Computational Law: Datasets, Benchmarks, and Ontologies
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
Recent developments in computer science and artificial intelligence have also contributed to the legal domain, as revealed by the number and range of related publications and applications. Machine and deep learning models require considerable amount of domain-specific data for training and comparison purposes, in order to attain high-performance in the legal domain. Additionally, semantic resources such as ontologies are valuable for building large-scale computational legal systems, in addition to ensuring interoperability of such systems. Considering these aspects, we present an up-to-date review of the literature on datasets, benchmarks, and ontologies proposed for computational law. We believe that this comprehensive and recent review will help researchers and practitioners when developing and testing approaches and systems for computational law.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
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.
-
Modeling the Diachronic Evolution of Legal Norms: An LRMoo-Based, Component-Level, Event-Centric Approach to Legal Knowledge Graphs
Proposes a component-level, event-centric LRMoo-based model for versioning legal norms, but provides no implementation to verify the claimed exact reconstruction.
-
Adaptive Sentencing Prediction with Guaranteed Accuracy and Legal Interpretability
A sentence-prediction model grounded in Chinese sentencing rules, updated online with a momentum LMS algorithm, reaches accuracy near a noise-limited theoretical bound on a new intentional-injury dataset.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.