ECtHR-PCR: A Dataset for Precedent Understanding and Prior Case Retrieval in the European Court of Human Rights
Reviewed by Pithpith:CYA5X5DWopen to challenge →
read the original abstract
In common law jurisdictions, legal practitioners rely on precedents to construct arguments, in line with the doctrine of \emph{stare decisis}. As the number of cases grow over the years, prior case retrieval (PCR) has garnered significant attention. Besides lacking real-world scale, existing PCR datasets do not simulate a realistic setting, because their queries use complete case documents while only masking references to prior cases. The query is thereby exposed to legal reasoning not yet available when constructing an argument for an undecided case as well as spurious patterns left behind by citation masks, potentially short-circuiting a comprehensive understanding of case facts and legal principles. To address these limitations, we introduce a PCR dataset based on judgements from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which explicitly separate facts from arguments and exhibit precedential practices, aiding us to develop this PCR dataset to foster systems' comprehensive understanding. We benchmark different lexical and dense retrieval approaches with various negative sampling strategies, adapting them to deal with long text sequences using hierarchical variants. We found that difficulty-based negative sampling strategies were not effective for the PCR task, highlighting the need for investigation into domain-specific difficulty criteria. Furthermore, we observe performance of the dense models degrade with time and calls for further research into temporal adaptation of retrieval models. Additionally, we assess the influence of different views , Halsbury's and Goodhart's, in practice in ECtHR jurisdiction using PCR task.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The Measurement Gap in the Automation of EU Law: Benchmarking Doctrinal Legal Reasoning under the EU AI Act
No benchmark exists for doctrinal legal reasoning in LLMs, leaving the EU AI Act's accuracy mandate for judicial AI without an operational test.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.