Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

LLMPR: A Novel LLM-Driven Transfer Learning based Petition Ranking Model

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that accepted legal petitions can be ranked by urgency almost perfectly using procedural timing features alone, with LLM text embeddings adding only marginal gains.

desk verdict The headline result is a tautology: the target rank is a deterministic function of a feature, so the reported R² and Spearman values do not measure genuine ranking ability. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21689 v1 pith:4JLRLYOC submitted 2025-05-27 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Avijit Gayen , Somyajit Chakraborty , Mainak Sen , Soham Paul , Angshuman Jana This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords petitionrankinglegaltextclassificationILDCdatasetLLMembeddingstransferlearningjudicialbacklogSpearmanrankcorrelationRandomForest
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 proposes LLMPR, an automated pipeline that assigns priority rankings to accepted legal petitions so that courts can attend to urgent cases first and reduce the backlog that plagues the Indian judiciary, where roughly 30 million cases are pending. Using the ILDC corpus of 7,593 annotated petitions, the authors combine text embeddings from models such as DistilBERT, LegalBERT, and MiniLM with numerical features — gap days, rank scores, word counts, and sentence counts — and train regression models to predict an urgency score. The paper's central finding is that the numerical features do almost all of the work: models trained on numbers alone reach $R^2 = 0.988$ and a Spearman rank correlation of $0.998$, while LLM embeddings add at most marginal gains, and Random Forest and Decision Tree models exceed 99% test accuracy. If this finding holds, a court could build a fast, cheap triage system without expensive language-model inference, because urgency would be readable from procedural timing rather than semantic content. The authors position the contribution as a way to remove manual bias from prioritization and to streamline judicial workflows, while acknowledging the system has so far been tested only on English-language Indian petitions and offers no explanations for its decisions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the gap-days construction: both the ground-truth rank and the dominant model features are derived from the time between a petition's acceptance and its first hearing. The pipeline computes $\text{gap days} = |\text{date}_{\text{proceeding}} - \text{date}_{\text{acceptance}}|$, then forms the rank targets $\text{rank\_score\_log} = \log(1 + \text{gap days})$ and $\text{rank\_score\_inverse\_square} = 1/\text{gap days}^2$, and then feeds the same temporal quantities — along with word count, sentence count, and concatenated transformer embeddings — into tree-based regressors such as Random Forest and Decision Tree. A three-stage zero-shot GPT-4o prompting pipeline extracts the acceptance and first-hearing dates from the unstructured petition text and computes these derived features. The experimental comparison rests on this construction: the ablation contrasts numeric-only models against models that add mean-pooled embeddings from LegalBERT, DistilBERT, and MiniLM, and the paper interprets the small gap between them ($R^2$ gains no larger than about 0.002) as evidence that urgency is carried by structural and temporal attributes instead of semantics.

What would settle it

Retrain the same models with $\text{rank\_score\_inverse\_square}$ as the target but with the gap-days and rank-score features removed, leaving only text embeddings and word or sentence counts as inputs: if $R^2$ and Spearman $\rho$ collapse toward zero, the headline results depended on handing the model the very quantity it was asked to predict. Separately, test the predicted ranks against an urgency signal not derived from gap days — for instance, time from first hearing to final disposal, or priority ratings assigned by judges — and check whether the Spearman correlation survives; if it does not, the ranking does not track real urgency.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that petition urgency can be captured almost entirely by procedural metadata, so that ranking accepted petitions reduces to a regression problem on a small set of numerical features. Its ground truth is a rank score built from the time gap between a petition's acceptance and its first scheduled hearing: the authors compute $\text{gap days} = |\text{date}_{\text{proceeding}} - \text{date}_{\text{acceptance}}|$, then derive $\text{rank\_score\_log} = \log(1 + \text{gap days})$ and $\text{rank\_score\_inverse\_square} = 1/\text{gap days}^2$. A three-stage zero-shot prompting pipeline based on GPT-4o extracts the two dates from unstructured petition text, computes these scores, and adds word and sentence counts; the resulting numerical features are concatenated with mean-pooled transformer embeddings and fed to Random Forest, Decision Tree, XGBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost, ElasticNet, and linear regression. On the predefined test split, the authors report that numeric-only models achieve $R^2 = 0.988$ and Spearman $\rho = 0.998$, that Random Forest and Decision Tree reach Spearman correlations near 0.99 with test accuracy above 99%, and that transformer embeddings shift $R^2$ by no more than about 0.002. The paper concludes that urgency in petitions is encoded in structural and temporal attributes rather than semantic content, and presents LLMPR as an automated decision-support tool that could streamline judicial workflows and reduce case backlog.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a rank score computed from the time gap between a petition's acceptance and its first hearing is a valid measure of genuine urgency, and that it can simultaneously be used as a model feature without making the prediction task circular; if the second half of that premise fails, the near-perfect scores are predetermined and do not demonstrate an ability to rank petitions by real urgency.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A court could deploy the framework as decision support to surface urgent accepted petitions first, directly attacking the roughly 30-million-case backlog the paper cites.
  • Expensive LLM inference is unnecessary for the ranking step, since numeric-only models already reach $R^2 = 0.988$ and Spearman $\rho = 0.998$; resource-constrained judiciaries could use simple tabular models instead.
  • Future ranking systems should invest feature engineering in procedural timelines and document statistics rather than semantic embeddings, following the paper's conclusion that urgency lives in structural attributes.
  • Tree-based models are the right model class for this task, while linear models (ElasticNet, Linear Regression) fail — the paper reports Spearman correlations as low as $-0.338$ for ElasticNet.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A step beyond the paper: because the target in Equations 5-7 is a deterministic function of the gap-days feature that is also fed to the model, the reported $R^2 \approx 0.988$ and $\rho \approx 0.998$ largely measure how exactly the regressor reconstructs the label formula from its own input — they do not, by themselves, establish that the ranking predicts real-world urgency.
  • The paper's practical value therefore depends on an untested empirical question: whether time-to-first-hearing is actually correlated with urgency; a validation study comparing LLMPR ranks against judge-assigned priority or time to final disposal would settle it.
  • Because the dominant features are extracted by an LLM (GPT-4o), the 'LLM-driven' description applies mainly to the metadata pipeline rather than the ranking itself; a rule-based date parser might recover most of the same signal, a comparison the paper does not run.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LLMPR, a framework for ranking accepted legal petitions by urgency. It uses the ILDC dataset of 7,593 Indian Supreme Court petitions, extracts text embeddings from several transformer models (DistilBERT, LegalBERT, MiniLM, FLAN-T5, E5, etc.), and augments them with numeric features—gap days, rank-score log, rank-score inverse square, word count, and sentence count—to train regression models (RF, DT, XGBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost, ElasticNet, Linear Regression). The ground-truth rank is derived from gap days via Eq. (7). The paper reports that RF and DT achieve above 99% accuracy and Spearman correlation 0.99, and that numeric-only features achieve R²=0.988 and ρ=0.998, with LLM embeddings adding little. It concludes that automated ranking can reduce judicial backlog.

Significance. The paper addresses an important practical problem—automated prioritization of accepted legal petitions to reduce court backlog—and it takes some laudable steps: it respects the predefined ILDC train/test split, verifies split non-overlap via TF-IDF cosine similarity, and makes evaluation artefacts publicly available in a Zenodo repository. However, the central experimental design contains a direct target-feature leakage: the ground-truth rank is defined as a transform of gap days, and gap days together with the derived rank scores are used as model features. The reported near-perfect performance is therefore predetermined and does not support the paper's claims about ranking quality or the marginal utility of LLM embeddings. Because this flaw invalidates the main conclusion, the paper cannot be accepted in its current form. If the authors were to redo the study with a target that is not a deterministic function of the features (e.g., predicting court delay or a human-annotated urgency label), the results might be informative, but that would constitute a new study.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3.3–3.3.4 and §3.2 step 4, Eqs. (5)–(7)] The target variable is a deterministic function of an input feature. The ground-truth rank is prepared in §3.2 step 4 'from the extracted numerical score from the text'; §3.3.3 defines gap days (Eq. 5), rank_score_log (Eq. 6), and rank_score_inverse_square = 1/gap_days² (Eq. 7); and §3.3.4 concatenates all three into the feature matrix F (Eq. 8). Consequently, the model receives gap_days as an input and is asked to predict 1/gap_days², so the reported R²=0.988 and ρ=0.998 in Table 3 and the abstract are tautological. The Tol-10% accuracy (Eq. 16) is also trivially satisfied by any model that fits the inverse-square mapping. The claim that 'numeric features alone achieve nearly optimal ranking results' is therefore an artifact of the experimental design, not evidence that the model has learned to rank petitions by urgency.
  2. [Tables 3 and 4] Tables 3 and 4 report irreconcilable numbers for the same models. Table 3 (LightGBM, numeric-only) reports R²=0.988, MSE=4.012e-5, and ρ=0.998, whereas Table 4 reports for LightGBM MSE=0.002 and R² in the range 0.001–0.007 across all embedding configurations (e.g., DistilBERT R²=0.001, LegalBERT R²=0.006). This discrepancy is not explained by the different feature sets, since the numeric-only configuration should be a subset of the combined configuration and cannot yield a 10⁴-fold larger MSE. The inconsistency undermines the reliability of the reported performance comparisons.
  3. [Table 4, §4.2] Table 4 shows negative R² values for Random Forest (–0.072 for DistilBERT; –0.002 for LegalBERT, MiniLM, Flan-T5, E5) and Decision Tree (–0.225 for DistilBERT; –0.002 for the others), while the text (§4.2, Fig. 5a) describes these models as achieving the best Spearman correlations (≈0.99) and 'superior performance.' Negative R² means the predictions are worse than predicting the constant mean on the squared-error scale; the paper does not reconcile this with the high Spearman values or explain how the ranking is 'near-perfect' when the regression is miscalibrated. This casts doubt on the evaluation protocol, including how the target is scaled and how the Spearman correlation is computed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.3.1 vs §3.4] The preprocessing description is contradictory: §3.3.1 states that stop words, non-alphanumeric characters, and punctuation are removed and stemming/lemmatization is applied, while §3.4 states that 'Petition texts were used as-is, without lowercasing, lemmatization, or stopword removal.' Please clarify which pipeline was actually used.
  2. [§3.4 (duplicated section)] The section 'Embedding Pre-processing and Representation' is immediately followed by a second '3.4 Embedding Generation' subsection; renumber the sections and consolidate the embedding description.
  3. [Table 5 caption] Table 5 is captioned 'Classification Metrics' but the task is regression; specify how 'Test Accuracy' and 'KFCV's Accuracy' are defined, presumably via Eq. (16), and relabel the caption accordingly.
  4. [Eq. (4)] Equation (4) is missing the fraction bar: L_contrastive = -log( exp(sim(ei,ej)) / sum_k exp(sim(ei,ek)) ); please typeset the formula correctly.
  5. [Section 1 and affiliations] The contribution list in Section 1 contains the typo 'rank soore,' and the affiliation should read 'Indian Institute of Information Technology Guwahati' rather than 'India Institute of Information Technology Ghuwahati.'
  6. [Tables 3 and 4 model lists] Table 3 introduces RoBERTa, Instructor XL, and FLAN-T5, but §3.3.2 only describes DistilBERT, MiniLM, Flan-T5, LegalBERT, and E5; list all models used and their sources consistently.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 10.0 of 10

The central result is tautological: the target rank score is defined as 1/gap_days^2 while gap_days and rank-score features are fed to the model, forcing the near-perfect R2 and Spearman values by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3.3 (Numerical Feature Engineering), Eqs. (5)-(7); Section 3.4 (Embedding Generation)]
    "We include following key features in our model: a)gap days i.e., the number of days between petition acceptance and the first proceeding, b) rank score, c) word count, and d) sentence count. ... rank score inverse square = 1/gap days2 . (7)"

    The regression target is the derived rank score (Eq. 7: y = 1/gap_days^2), while gap_days and rank score log are listed as model features and are concatenated into the feature matrix before regression. Since y is a deterministic function of an input column, Random Forest and Decision Tree can reproduce the target almost exactly, so the reported R^2 = 0.988 and Spearman rho = 0.998 are forced by construction. The numeric-only 'ablation' is not an independent feature set; it contains the inverse-square mapping used to build the label. This also explains why LLM embeddings add little: the target is already present as a numeric feature.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 Methodology, steps 3-4 (Numerical Feature Integration and Ground Truth Preparation)]
    "Numerical Feature Integration: We next incorporate some derived numerical feature extracted from the text of the each petitions except the text embedded features with the help of OpenAI's GPT4o prompts [41]. ... Ground Truth Preparation: We further prepare rank of the petitions from the extracted data from the text of the petitions. The ranking based on the extracted numerical score from the text of the petition is used as the ground truth of the proposed model for validation the testing."

    The same GPT4o extraction over the same petition text produces both the numeric feature set (gap days, rank score) and the ground-truth rank: the 'derived numerical feature extracted from the text' and the 'extracted numerical score' used as target come from one pipeline. Validation therefore compares predictions with labels manufactured from the model's own inputs. This makes the accuracy and rank-correlation metrics measurements of feature reconstruction, not of petition-urgency prediction.

full rationale

The paper's headline claims — numeric-only features achieve R2 = 0.988 and Spearman rho = 0.998, and LLM embeddings add only marginal gains — are not independent findings. The target variable rank_score_inverse_square is defined in Eq. (7) as 1/gap_days^2, and Section 3.3.3 explicitly lists gap_days and rank score as model features, with Section 3.4 confirming that gap_days and rank score log are concatenated into the regression input. Any flexible tree model can therefore reconstruct the label from the input by applying the same inverse-square formula, so the near-perfect metrics are predetermined. The circularity is internal to the paper's own equations and feature list, not a matter of external consensus. A non-circular evaluation would require a ground-truth urgency label independent of the gap-days-derived feature set.

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

The central quantitative claims rest on a hand-defined rank score that is used as both target and feature, plus unverified LLM-extracted dates and arbitrary preprocessing choices. No external ground truth for urgency is introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • rank score definitions (log and inverse square) = log(1+gap_days) and 1/gap_days^2
    These hand-chosen transforms define both the prediction target and input features (Eqs. 6-7, Stage 2), so the reported performance is an artifact of the choice rather than independent evidence.
  • accuracy tolerance epsilon = 10% relative error
    Eq. 16 defines accuracy with an unspecified epsilon; only the Tol-10% Acc. in Table 3 discloses 10%. The abstract's 'accuracy exceeding 99%' appears to come from a different, binarized metric (Table 5).
  • max token length for embeddings = 128
    Section 3.4 truncates all petitions to 128 tokens despite an average length over 20,000 words, making text embeddings weak and contributing to the 'marginal gains' result. The choice is not justified.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Gap days between acceptance and first hearing is a valid proxy for petition urgency
    Section 3.1 says the rank score is inspired by prior judicial delay studies that treat early court attention as a proxy for systemic priority; no external validation of this proxy is provided.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o prompt-based date extraction is accurate
    Section 3.2 and Figs. 2-3 rely on zero-shot GPT-4o to extract acceptance and proceeding dates and compute gap days; no human verification or error analysis is reported.
  • domain assumption The ILDC predefined train/test split prevents leakage
    Section 3.1 uses the original split and a TF-IDF bigram similarity check below 0.80, but the check is not described with enough detail to verify; more importantly, the target-feature leakage is within rows and is not addressed by the split.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLMPR: A Novel LLM-Driven Transfer Learning based Petition Ranking Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4JLRLYOC

@misc{pith2026250521689,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLMPR: A Novel LLM-Driven Transfer Learning based Petition Ranking Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4JLRLYOC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21689}
}
read the original abstract

The persistent accumulation of unresolved legal cases, especially within the Indian judiciary, significantly hampers the timely delivery of justice. Manual methods of prioritizing petitions are often prone to inefficiencies and subjective biases further exacerbating delays. To address this issue, we propose LLMPR (Large Language Model-based Petition Ranking), an automated framework that utilizes transfer learning and machine learning to assign priority rankings to legal petitions based on their contextual urgency. Leveraging the ILDC dataset comprising 7,593 annotated petitions, we process unstructured legal text and extract features through various embedding techniques, including DistilBERT, LegalBERT, and MiniLM. These textual embeddings are combined with quantitative indicators such as gap days, rank scores, and word counts to train multiple machine learning models, including Random Forest, Decision Tree, XGBoost, LightGBM, and CatBoost. Our experiments demonstrate that Random Forest and Decision Tree models yield superior performance, with accuracy exceeding 99% and a Spearman rank correlation of 0.99. Notably, models using only numerical features achieve nearly optimal ranking results (R2 = 0.988, \r{ho} = 0.998), while LLM-based embeddings offer only marginal gains. These findings suggest that automated petition ranking can effectively streamline judicial workflows, reduce case backlog, and improve fairness in legal prioritization.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Melcarne, G.B

    A. Melcarne, G.B. Ramello, et al., Is justice delayed justice denied? an empirical approach. International Review of Law and Economics 65, 105,953 (2021) 24

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Joshi, P

    K.A. Joshi, P. Mathur, R. Koranga, L. Singh, in Proceedings of the 5th Interna- tional Conference on Information Management & Machine Intelligence(2023), pp. 1–7

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Singh, in 2018 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Commu- nication Control and Networking (ICACCCN)(IEEE, 2018), pp

    M. Singh, in 2018 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Commu- nication Control and Networking (ICACCCN)(IEEE, 2018), pp. 128–131

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Baruah, R

    R. Baruah, R. Arora, Judicial accountability and judicial independence: The touchstone of indian democracy. Available at SSRN 2011755 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Kumar, A

    A. Kumar, A. Singh, The impact of political influence and power on the indian judiciary. IJLS 9, 1 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Cummings, D.L

    S.L. Cummings, D.L. Rhode, Public interest litigation: Insights from theory and practice. Fordham Urb. LJ 36, 603 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Hazra, What does (and does not) affect crime in india? International Journal of Social Economics 47(4), 503–521 (2020)

    D. Hazra, What does (and does not) affect crime in india? International Journal of Social Economics 47(4), 503–521 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/

    Law commission of india. https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/. [Accessed: 2024- 02-21]

    work page 2024

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Lawlor, What computers can do: Analysis and prediction of judicial decisions

    R.C. Lawlor, What computers can do: Analysis and prediction of judicial decisions. American Bar Association Journal pp. 337–344 (1963)

    1963

  2. [10]

    Vercosa, V

    L. Vercosa, V. Silva, J. Cruz, C. Bastos-Filho, B.L. Bezerra, Investigation of lawsuit process duration using machine learning and process mining. Discover Analytics 2(1), 9 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Sokhansanj, G.L

    B.A. Sokhansanj, G.L. Rosen, Predicting institution outcomes for inter partes review (ipr) proceedings at the united states patent trial & appeal board by deep learning of patent owner preliminary response briefs. Applied Sciences 12(7), 3656 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Faccioni, M

    M.A.F. Faccioni, M. da Silva Lisboa, M.L. Rocha, D.N. Prata, G.V. Barbosa, in 2023 Fifth International Conference on Transdisciplinary AI (TransAI)(IEEE, 2023), pp. 110–113

    2023

  5. [13]

    Malik, R

    V. Malik, R. Sanjay, S.K. Nigam, K. Ghosh, S.K. Guha, A. Bhattacharya, A. Modi, in Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers)(Assoc...

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Abdillah, M

    A. Abdillah, M. Din, M.Y.A. Kadir, Indonesian judicial system on probation. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding 10(1), 25 458–468 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Kholiq, I

    A. Kholiq, I. Halimatusa’diyah, Does gender blindness improve gender equal- ity? female judges and the glass ceiling effect in the islamic judicial system in indonesia. Social & Legal Studies 32(1), 139–158 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Sil, Alpana, A

    R. Sil, Alpana, A. Roy, A review on applications of artificial intelligence over indian legal system. IETE Journal of Research 69(9), 6029–6038 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    E. Ash, S. Asher, A. Bhowmick, S. Bhupatiraju, D.L. Chen, T. Devi, C. Goess- mann, P. Novosad, B. Siddiqi, Measuring gender and religious bias in the indian judiciary (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Ippoliti, G

    R. Ippoliti, G. Tria, Efficiency of judicial systems: model definition and output estimation. Journal of Applied Economics 23(1), 385–408 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Sundari, A

    E. Sundari, A. Retnowati, The weakness of the control system for fighting cor- ruption in the judicial process: The case of indonesia. International Journal of Social, Policy and Law 2(1), 93–102 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Susanto, E-court as the prevention efforts against the indonesia judicial corruption

    S. Susanto, E-court as the prevention efforts against the indonesia judicial corruption. Yustisia Jurnal Hukum 9(1), 116–138 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    ˇCehuli´ c, et al., Perspectives of legal culture: A systematic literature review

    M. ˇCehuli´ c, et al., Perspectives of legal culture: A systematic literature review. Revija za sociologiju 51(2), 257–282 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Barno, D.N

    M. Barno, D.N. Mart ´ ınez, K.R. Williams, Exploring alternatives to cash bail: An evaluation of orange county’s pretrial assessment and release supervision (pars) program. American Journal of Criminal Justice 45, 363–378 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Farrell, An excess of methods: Identifying implied fundamental rights in the supreme court

    R.C. Farrell, An excess of methods: Identifying implied fundamental rights in the supreme court. . Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 26, 203 (2007)

    2007

  16. [24]

    Chawla, B

    N. Chawla, B. Kumar, E-commerce and consumer protection in india: the emerging trend. Journal of Business Ethics 180(2), 581–604 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Sourdin, B

    T. Sourdin, B. Li, D.M. McNamara, Court innovations and access to justice in times of crisis. Health policy and technology 9(4), 447–453 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Rasheed, A.K

    Q.S. Rasheed, A.K. Sharma, An alternative proposal of justice: Muslim women activists and socio-legal realities in india. Journal of International Women’s Studies 22(1), 270–292 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Smith, Integrating technology in contemporary legal education

    M. Smith, Integrating technology in contemporary legal education. The Law Teacher 54(2), 209–221 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Zhong, C

    H. Zhong, C. Xiao, C. Tu, T. Zhang, Z. Liu, M. Sun, How does nlp benefit legal system: A summary of legal artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.12158 26 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    C. Shi, T. Sourdin, B. Li, in IJCA, vol. 12 (HeinOnline, 2021), p. 1

    2021

  22. [30]

    Putra, A modern judicial system in indonesia: legal breakthrough of e-court and e-legal proceeding

    D. Putra, A modern judicial system in indonesia: legal breakthrough of e-court and e-legal proceeding. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan 9(2), 275–297 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Benedetto, L

    I. Benedetto, L. Cagliero, M. Ferro, F. Tarasconi, C. Bernini, G. Giacalone, Lever- aging large language models for abstractive summarization of italian legal news. Artificial Intelligence and Law pp. 1–21 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Z. Wang, Y. Ding, C. Wu, Y. Guo, W. Zhou, Causality-inspired legal provision selection with large language model-based explanation. Artificial Intelligence and Law pp. 1–25 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    R. Li, A. Z¨ ufle, L. Zhao, G. Lamprianidis, in Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSPATIAL Workshop on Analytics for Local Events and News(2017), pp. 1–4

    2017

  26. [34]

    F. Sun, Y. Zuo, Autonomous classification and decision-making support of citizen e-petitions based on bi-lstm-cnn. Mathematical Problems in Engineering2022(1), 9451,108 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Buryakov, M

    D. Buryakov, M. Kovacs, U. Serd¨ ult, V. Kryssanov, in Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research(2024), pp. 156–164

    2024

  28. [36]

    Ahmad, M.Z

    S. Ahmad, M.Z. Asghar, F.M. Alotaibi, Y.D. Al-Otaibi, A hybrid cnn+ bilstm deep learning-based dss for efficient prediction of judicial case decisions. Expert Systems with Applications 209, 118,318 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Z. Yang, J. Feng, Explainable multi-task convolutional neural network framework for electronic petition tag recommendation. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 59, 101,263 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Nguyen, A brief report on lawgpt 1.0: A virtual legal assistant based on gpt-3

    H.T. Nguyen, A brief report on lawgpt 1.0: A virtual legal assistant based on gpt-3. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05729 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Huang, M

    Q. Huang, M. Tao, C. Zhang, Z. An, C. Jiang, Z. Chen, Z. Wu, Y. Feng, Lawyer llama technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15062 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Clavi´ e, A

    B. Clavi´ e, A. Gheewala, P. Briton, M. Alphonsus, R. Laabiyad, F. Piccoli, Legalm- fit: Efficient short legal text classification with lstm language model pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.00993 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Hurst, A

    A. Hurst, A. Lerer, A.P. Goucher, A. Perelman, A. Ramesh, A. Clark, A. Ostrow, A. Welihinda, A. Hayes, A. Radford, et al., Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 (2024) 27

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    V. Sanh, L. Debut, J. Chaumond, T. Wolf, Distilbert, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. CoRR abs/1910.01108 (2019). URL http: //arxiv.org/abs/1910.01108. 1910.01108

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A.N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, I. Polosukhin, Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    W. Wang, F. Wei, L. Dong, H. Bao, N. Yang, M. Zhou, Minilm: Deep self-attention distillation for task-agnostic compression of pre-trained transform- ers. CoRR abs/2002.10957 (2020). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.10957. 2002.10957

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Chung, L

    H.W. Chung, L. Hou, S. Longpre, B. Zoph, Y. Tay, W. Fedus, Y. Li, X. Wang, M. Dehghani, S. Brahma, A. Webson, S.S. Gu, Z. Dai, M. Suzgun, X. Chen, A. Chowdhery, A. Castro-Ros, M. Pellat, K. Robinson, D. Valter, S. Narang, G. Mishra, A. Yu, V. Zhao, Y. Huang, A. Dai, H. Yu, S. ...

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Chalkidis, M

    I. Chalkidis, M. Fergadiotis, P. Malakasiotis, N. Aletras, I. Androutsopoulos, LEGAL-BERT: the muppets straight out of law school. CoRR abs/2010.02559 (2020). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.02559. 2010.02559

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    L. Wang, N. Yang, X. Huang, B. Jiao, L. Yang, D. Jiang, R. Majumder, F. Wei. Text embeddings by weakly-supervised contrastive pre-training (2024). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.03533

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Pourpanah, M

    F. Pourpanah, M. Abdar, Y. Luo, X. Zhou, R. Wang, C.P. Lim, X.Z. Wang, Q.J. Wu, A review of generalized zero-shot learning methods. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 45(4), 4051–4070 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    T. Wolf, L. Debut, V. Sanh, J. Chaumond, C. Delangue, A. Moi, P. Cistac, T. Rault, R. Louf, M. Funtowicz, et al., Huggingface’s transformers: State-of-the- art natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Chakraborty, A

    S. Chakraborty, A. Gayen, M. Sen, A. Jana. Evaluation artefacts for llm@pr: A llm-driven petition ranking framework (2025). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 15496402. URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15496402 28

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.