Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 54 references

VLQA: The First Comprehensive, Large, and High-Quality Vietnamese Dataset for Legal Question Answering

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces VLQA, a new benchmark of 3,129 real-world Vietnamese legal questions with expert-verified answers and statute citations, and uses it to show that current LLMs score well on automatic metrics but often hallucinate in…

desk verdict A genuinely needed Vietnamese legal QA dataset, built carefully enough to be useful, but the missing release and single-reviewer ground truth make the 'largest' and 'high-quality' claims untestable as submitted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19995 v1 pith:O7427VST submitted 2025-07-26 cs.CL cs.AI

Tan-Minh Nguyen , Hoang-Trung Nguyen , Trong-Khoi Dao , Xuan-Hieu Phan , Ha-Thanh Nguyen , Thi-Hai-Yen Vuong This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords Vietnameselegalquestionansweringinformationretrievalstatutoryarticleexpert-annotateddatasetlow-resourceNLPlargelanguagemodelshallucinationbenchmark
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 introduces VLQA, a dataset of 3,129 legal questions asked by Vietnamese citizens, each paired with an expert-verified answer and citations to relevant articles from a corpus of roughly 59,636 statutory provisions. The authors claim this is the largest expert-verified, long-form legal QA dataset for any statutory domain, and they position it as a benchmark for two tasks: legal article retrieval and legal question answering. They evaluate sparse and dense retrievers, extractive and generative QA models, and several large language models, finding that while LLMs achieve high scores on automated metrics, human evaluation shows their outputs often contain factual errors or hallucinated content. The paper's core contribution is the dataset itself, together with baseline measurements that reveal how far current systems are from reliable legal assistance.

What carries the argument

The central object is the VLQA benchmark: 3,129 question-answer-article triplets built from real citizen questions, paired with a hierarchical corpus of 59,636 Vietnamese law articles. The supporting mechanism is the construction pipeline: regular-expression parsing of roughly 430,000 raw forum posts to extract question-answer-article references, independent annotation by five senior law students, and final verification by a supervising legal expert, whose revisions changed either answers or cited articles on about 26% of samples.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of, say, 100 VLQA test questions, have a separate group of licensed Vietnamese lawyers independently identify the relevant statutory articles without seeing the gold labels, and measure agreement; if the independent lawyers match the dataset's article sets on substantially fewer than 90% of questions, the gold standard and the benchmark rankings built on it are not stable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that VLQA is the first comprehensive, large-scale, expert-annotated legal QA dataset for Vietnamese, built from 3,129 questions sourced from public legal consultation platforms, each validated by legal professionals and linked to relevant articles in a 59,636-article corpus spanning 27 legal domains. The dataset supports two tasks: statutory article retrieval (given a question, find the relevant articles) and legal question answering (produce a long-form answer). The paper reports that a fine-tuned multilingual BERT retriever outperforms zero-shot dense and sparse baselines, and that GPT-4o-mini achieves the highest automatic QA scores; however, qualitative analysis of 100 test samples shows that LLM outputs frequently contain incomplete, logically incorrect, or hallucinated elements even when the text is fluent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the article citations and answers produced by five senior law students and one supervising expert are correct and complete for every one of the 3,129 questions; if those gold labels are wrong or miss relevant provisions, every retrieval and QA score in the paper is comparing models against a flawed ground truth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • VLQA gives Vietnamese legal AI a common testbed for article retrieval and answer generation, enabling fair comparison of models on realistic layperson questions.
  • The baseline results establish that domain-adapted dense retrieval beats zero-shot models, but even the best retriever identifies fewer than half of the relevant articles in its top two, leaving substantial room for improvement.
  • Automated metrics such as ROUGE and BERTScore overestimate LLM quality in legal QA, since human review shows fluent, well-structured answers can still contain incorrect figures or fabricated legal references.
  • The finding that smaller LLMs degrade with few-shot examples while larger ones improve suggests that context length and memory capacity limit legal QA performance on this benchmark.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the questions come from public forums and cover everyday concerns, VLQA could also be used to study how LLMs explain legal rights to laypeople, a use beyond model ranking that the paper does not explore.
  • A natural stress test for VLQA would be to measure whether a legal QA system trained on it actually helps non-expert users apply the law to new situations, which would test practical utility rather than benchmark scores.
  • The absence of reported inter-annotator agreement means that a re-annotation study with independent legal experts would be the immediate next check on the gold labels; if agreement is low, the comparative ranking of retrieval and QA models could shift.
  • If VLQA is updated as Vietnamese statutes change, it could serve as a longitudinal test of whether models track legal amendments, since the paper already shows that repealed provisions must be caught during annotation.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces VLQA, a Vietnamese legal question-answering dataset consisting of 3,129 question-answer-article triplets collected from public legal consultation forums and verified by a team of five senior law students under the supervision of one legal expert. The dataset is built on a corpus of 59,636 statutory articles from 2,162 Vietnamese legal documents, and is split into training, development, and test subsets. The authors conduct a statistical analysis of the dataset and benchmark multiple legal article retrieval models (BM25, fastText, SBERT, BGE-m3, mBERT, BGE-reranker) and question-answering models (extractive transformers, generative Vietnamese models, and several LLMs) using automatic metrics and a human evaluation of 100 sampled outputs. The paper claims that VLQA is the first comprehensive, large-scale, expert-annotated Vietnamese benchmark for legal QA and the largest real-world expert-verified LQA dataset covering any statutory domain.

Significance. If the dataset is released and its quality is validated, VLQA would be a valuable resource for legal NLP in Vietnamese, a low-resource language, and would complement existing benchmarks such as LLeQA and EQUALS. The paper's strengths include a detailed and transparent description of the construction pipeline, the presentation of reviewer-modification statistics in Table 3, concrete examples of corrections in Table 4, and an honest qualitative analysis of LLM hallucination behavior in Tables 14 and 15. The experimental section covers a wide range of baseline models and both automatic and human evaluation. The main caveats are that the dataset is not yet publicly available, no inter-annotator agreement is reported, and the 'largest' claim appears to conflict with the same table's listing of EQUALS, which has more questions. These issues are central to the paper's contribution as a benchmark dataset, but they are addressable in revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 1 and Section 3.2.1, Table 1] The claim that VLQA is 'the largest real-world expert-verified LQA dataset covering any statutory domain' (Section 1) is not supported by the paper's own Table 1, which lists EQUALS with 6,914 questions from a web-forum source. Since EQUALS is also a real-world dataset, the 'largest' claim requires an explicit justification of why EQUALS does not count (e.g., lack of expert verification) and evidence for that distinction. As written, the claim is internally inconsistent with the presented comparison, and this affects a central contribution of the paper.
  2. [Section 3.1.3, Table 3] The gold labels rest on a single legal expert's review, yet no inter-annotator agreement is reported at either the student-annotation stage or the reviewer stage. Table 3 shows that the reviewer modified 25.8% of the student annotations, so the final labels depend substantially on the reviewer's individual judgment. Without a measured agreement statistic (e.g., Cohen's kappa between the two student annotators, or between two independent expert reviews on a subset), the 'high-quality' and 'reliable' claims for the dataset are not established. A systematic blind spot of the reviewer would propagate directly into all retrieval and QA evaluations. I recommend reporting IAA metrics and, if feasible, having a second legal expert independently verify a random subset.
  3. [Section 1 and Section 7] The paper states that the dataset and source code 'will be publicly released soon,' but no release link, data availability statement, or repository identifier is provided in the current manuscript. For a dataset paper, the central artifact must be accessible for independent verification and for the benchmark to be usable by the community. The manuscript should include a URL or a clear availability plan (e.g., an anonymous link for review) before acceptance.
  4. [Section 5.2.2, Tables 10 and 11] The question-answering evaluation does not specify which retriever and which value of k are used to supply the 'top-k relevant articles' to the QA models. This makes the QA results in Tables 10 and 11 non-reproducible and complicates interpretation, since QA performance depends critically on the quality of the retrieved context. Please state the retriever, k, and whether the same retrieved articles are used for all QA models.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1 and first page] The manuscript contains placeholder-like metadata: 'Received 20 February 2007; revised 12 March 2009; accepted 5 June 2009' and a 2018 copyright notice. These should be updated or removed.
  2. [Table 1 vs. Section 6.3] Table 1 reports an average gold-answer length of 216.74 words, whereas Section 6.3 states that gold answers average 198 words. Please clarify whether the latter figure refers only to the 100-sample human-evaluation subset or to the test set, and align the numbers.
  3. [Section 3.1.1] The corpus collection step says documents with identical titles but different subjects are excluded. This may remove legally distinct instruments; please clarify the criterion and its potential effect on corpus coverage.
  4. [Table 7] The reasoning-type percentages sum to more than 100%, which the caption notes is because one question may require multiple reasoning abilities. The table itself does not show individual question counts; adding counts for each reasoning type would help interpret the percentages.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: VLQA is built from external forum posts and expert annotation, and its evaluation uses standard metrics against the gold data.

full rationale

The paper's central artifact is a dataset, not a derived prediction. Questions are sourced from public legal consultation platforms, answers and article references are extracted from human-generated forum responses via regular expressions, and the resulting triplets are then validated and corrected by law students and a legal expert (Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3). No model output is used to generate the gold labels, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction step. The evaluation of retrievers and QA models compares their outputs against this externally sourced, expert-verified gold data using standard IR metrics (recall, precision, MAP, MRR, NDCG) and text-overlap/embedding metrics (ROUGE, BERTScore); none of these metrics is defined in terms of the models' own parameters or outputs. The only self-citations are related-work references, notably ALQAC 2023 [26] and Nguyen et al. [28], which are used for comparison or background and are not load-bearing for the construction, statistics, or evaluation of VLQA. The paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The absence of reported inter-annotator agreement and the fact that the dataset is not yet released are genuine quality and verifiability concerns, but they are not circularity: the gold labels are produced by human judgment, and the later evaluation is measured against those labels rather than being equivalent to them by construction. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the inputs used to build the benchmark, and no specific circular reduction can be quoted from the paper.

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

The central claim depends on assumptions about corpus completeness, regex extraction accuracy, annotator competence, and gold-answer correctness. No numeric free parameters are used in the dataset construction; the main unmeasured choices are qualitative filtering decisions.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The filtered corpus of 59,636 articles from 2,162 legal documents accurately represents the active body of Vietnamese statutory law relevant to citizen questions.
    Section 3.1.1 describes collection and exclusion of repealed articles, but completeness and legal correctness of the corpus selection are not independently audited.
  • domain assumption Regular-expression extraction of legal article references from forum answers correctly identifies the relevant statutory articles.
    Section 3.1.2 relies on regex parsing to align questions with articles; no precision or recall of the extraction step is reported.
  • domain assumption A team of five senior law students plus one supervising legal expert provides sufficiently accurate gold annotations.
    Section 3.1.3 describes training and review but reports no inter-annotator agreement or formal legal qualification details.
  • domain assumption Gold answers from consultation forums, after expert revision, are treated as ground truth for automated and human evaluation.
    Section 5 uses the verified answers as references; any residual errors in the gold answers propagate to all reported metrics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VLQA: The First Comprehensive, Large, and High-Quality Vietnamese Dataset for Legal Question Answering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O7427VST

@misc{pith2026250719995,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VLQA: The First Comprehensive, Large, and High-Quality Vietnamese Dataset for Legal Question Answering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O7427VST}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19995}
}
read the original abstract

The advent of large language models (LLMs) has led to significant achievements in various domains, including legal text processing. Leveraging LLMs for legal tasks is a natural evolution and an increasingly compelling choice. However, their capabilities are often portrayed as greater than they truly are. Despite the progress, we are still far from the ultimate goal of fully automating legal tasks using artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP). Moreover, legal systems are deeply domain-specific and exhibit substantial variation across different countries and languages. The need for building legal text processing applications for different natural languages is, therefore, large and urgent. However, there is a big challenge for legal NLP in low-resource languages such as Vietnamese due to the scarcity of resources and annotated data. The need for labeled legal corpora for supervised training, validation, and supervised fine-tuning is critical. In this paper, we introduce the VLQA dataset, a comprehensive and high-quality resource tailored for the Vietnamese legal domain. We also conduct a comprehensive statistical analysis of the dataset and evaluate its effectiveness through experiments with state-of-the-art models on legal information retrieval and question-answering tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19995 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The detailed process of VLQA construction. This process involves four phases: article corpus collection (phase 1), question [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The interface of the data annotation framework for VLQA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The number of samples in each processing step. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Data statistics of VLQA. Binary, Which, When, Who, Where, Other, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of types of questions in VLQA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of questions by law category in VLQA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Supervised learning framework for the legal article retrieval task in VLQA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An extractive QA framework for the legal question answering task in VLQA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Deepa Anand and Rupali Wagh. 2022. Effective deep learning approaches for summarization of legal texts.Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences34, 5 (2022), 2141–2150

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2017. Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information. arXiv:1607.04606 [cs.CL]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Ilias Chalkidis, Manos Fergadiotis, Prodromos Malakasiotis, Nikolaos Aletras, and Ion Androutsopoulos. 2020. LEGAL-BERT: The Muppets straight out of Law School. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, Trevor Cohn, Yulan He, and Yang Liu (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 2898–2904. https://doi.org/1...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.261 2020

  4. [4]

    Yu, Qiang Yang, and Xing Xie

    Yupeng Chang, Xu Wang, Jindong Wang, Yuan Wu, Linyi Yang, Kaijie Zhu, Hao Chen, Xiaoyuan Yi, Cunxiang Wang, Yidong Wang, Wei Ye, Yue Zhang, Yi Chang, Philip S. Yu, Qiang Yang, and Xing Xie. 2024. A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models.ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. Manuscript submitted to ACM 22 Tan-Minh Nguyen et al. 15, 3, Article 39 (mar 20...

    doi:10.1145/3641289 2024

  5. [5]

    Andong Chen, Feng Yao, Xinyan Zhao, Yating Zhang, Changlong Sun, Yun Liu, and Weixing Shen. 2023. EQUALS: A Real-world Dataset for Legal Question Answering via Reading Chinese Laws. InProceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law(Braga, Portugal)(ICAIL ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA...

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Jianlyu Chen, Shitao Xiao, Peitian Zhang, Kun Luo, Defu Lian, and Zheng Liu. 2024. M3-Embedding: Multi-Linguality, Multi-Functionality, Multi-Granularity Text Embeddings Through Self-Knowledge Distillation. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar (Eds.). Association for Computati...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.137 2024

  7. [7]

    Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scale. InProceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Nat...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-ma 2020

  8. [8]

    Diego de Vargas Feijó and Viviane Pereira Moreira. 2018. Rulingbr: A summarization dataset for legal texts. InInternational Conference on Computational Processing of the Portuguese Language. Springer, 255–264

    work page 2018

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human ...

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Xingyi Duan, Baoxin Wang, Ziyue Wang, Wentao Ma, Yiming Cui, Dayong Wu, Shijin Wang, Ting Liu, Tianxiang Huo, Zhen Hu, et al. 2019. Cjrc: A reliable human-annotated benchmark dataset for chinese judicial reading comprehension. InChinese Computational Linguistics: 18th China Na...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Randy Goebel, Yoshinobu Kano, Mi-Young Kim, Juliano Rabelo, Ken Satoh, and Masaharu Yoshioka. 2024. Overview of Benchmark Datasets and Methods for the Legal Information Extraction/Entailment Competition (COLIEE) 2024. InNew Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence: JSAI Internatio...

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Anya Chen, and Spencer Ball. 2021. CUAD: An Expert-Annotated NLP Dataset for Legal Contract Review.NeurIPS (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Ambedkar Kanapala, Sukomal Pal, and Rajendra Pamula. 2019. Text summarization from legal documents: a survey.Artificial Intelligence Review51 (2019), 371–402

    2019

  6. [14]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2017. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. arXiv:1412.6980 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Kalpesh Krishna, Aurko Roy, and Mohit Iyyer. 2021. Hurdles to Progress in Long-form Question Answering. InProceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Kristina Toutanova, Anna Ru...

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention. InProceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 29th Symposium on Operating Sy...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Quoc Le and Tomas Mikolov. 2014. Distributed Representations of Sentences and Documents. InProceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 32), Eric P. Xing and Tony Jebara (Eds.). PMLR, Bejing, China, 1188–1...

    2014

  10. [18]

    Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehension. InProceedings of the 58th...

    2020

  11. [19]

    Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A Package for Automatic Evaluation of Summaries. InText Summarization Branches Out. Association for Computational Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain, 74–81. https://aclanthology.org/W04-1013

    2004

  12. [20]

    Jimmy Lin. 2019. The Neural Hype and Comparisons Against Weak Baselines.SIGIR Forum52, 2 (Jan. 2019), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308774. 3308781

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Marco Lippi, Przemysław Pałka, Giuseppe Contissa, Francesca Lagioia, Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz, Giovanni Sartor, and Paolo Torroni. 2019. CLAUDETTE: an automated detector of potentially unfair clauses in online terms of service.Artificial Intelligence and Law27 (2019), 117–139

    2019

  14. [22]

    Antoine Louis and Gerasimos Spanakis. 2022. A Statutory Article Retrieval Dataset in French. InProceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Smaranda Muresan, Preslav Nakov, and Aline Villavicencio (Eds.). Asso...

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Antoine Louis, Gijs van Dijck, and Gerasimos Spanakis. 2024. Interpretable long-form legal question answering with retrieval-augmented large language models. InProceedings of the Thirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-Sixth Conference on Innovative...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Laura Manor and Junyi Jessy Li. 2019. Plain English Summarization of Contracts. InProceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop 2019, Nikolaos Aletras, Elliott Ash, Leslie Barrett, Daniel Chen, Adam Meyers, Daniel Preotiuc-Pietro, David Rosenberg, and Amanda St...

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Masha Medvedeva, Michel Vols, and Martijn Wieling. 2018. Judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: Looking into the crystal ball. InProceedings of the conference on empirical legal studies. 24

    2018

  18. [26]

    Chau Nguyen, Son T. Luu, Thanh Tran, An Trieu, Anh Dang, Dat Nguyen, Hiep Nguyen, Tin Pham, Trang Pham, Thien-Trung Vo, Dinh-Truong Dol, Nguyen-Khang Le, Dieu-Hien Nguyen, Ngoc-Cam Le, Thi-Thuy Le, Quan Bui, Phuong Nguyen, Ha-Thanh Nguyen, Vu Tran, and Le-Minh Nguyen. 2023. A ...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Dat Quoc Nguyen and Anh Tuan Nguyen. 2020. PhoBERT: Pre-trained language models for Vietnamese. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, Trevor Cohn, Yulan He, and Yang Liu (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 1037–1042. ht...

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Ha-Thanh Nguyen, Manh-Kien Phi, Xuan-Bach Ngo, Vu Tran, Le-Minh Nguyen, and Minh-Phuong Tu. 2024. Attentive deep neural networks for legal document retrieval.Artificial Intelligence and Law32, 1 (2024), 57–86

    2024

  21. [29]

    Long Phan, Hieu Tran, Hieu Nguyen, and Trieu H. Trinh. 2022. ViT5: Pretrained Text-to-Text Transformer for Vietnamese Language Generation. arXiv:2205.06457 [cs.CL]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Alejandro Ponce, Sarah Chamness Long, Elizabeth Andersen, Camilo Gutierrez Patino, Matthew Harman, Jorge A Morales, Ted Piccone, Natalia Ro- driguez Cajamarca, Adriana Stephan, Kirssy Gonzalez, et al. 2019. Global insights on access to justice 2019: Findings from the world jus...

    2019

  23. [31]

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog1, 8 (2019), 9

    2019

  24. [32]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer.Journal of machine learning research21, 140 (2020), 1–67

    2020

  25. [33]

    Abhilasha Ravichander, Alan W Black, Shomir Wilson, Thomas Norton, and Norman Sadeh. 2019. Question Answering for Privacy Policies: Combining Computational and Legal Perspectives. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the ...

    2019

  26. [34]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP- IJC...

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    Stephen Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. The Probabilistic Relevance Framework: BM25 and Beyond.Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval3 (01 2009), 333–389. https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000019

    2009 doi

  28. [36]

    Gil Semo, Dor Bernsohn, Ben Hagag, Gila Hayat, and Joel Niklaus. 2022. ClassActionPrediction: A Challenging Benchmark for Legal Judgment Prediction of Class Action Cases in the US. InProceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop 2022, Nikolaos Aletras, Ilias Ch...

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Keet Sugathadasa, Buddhi Ayesha, Nisansa de Silva, Amal Shehan Perera, Vindula Jayawardana, Dimuthu Lakmal, and Madhavi Perera. 2019. Legal document retrieval using document vector embeddings and deep learning. InIntelligent Computing: Proceedings of the 2018 Computing Confere...

    2019

  30. [38]

    Cong Dao Tran, Nhut Huy Pham, Anh Tuan Nguyen, Truong Son Hy, and Tu Vu. 2023. ViDeBERTa: A powerful pre-trained language model for Vietnamese. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023, Andreas Vlachos and Isabelle Augenstein (Eds.). Association f...

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    Nguyen Luong Tran, Duong Minh Le, and Dat Quoc Nguyen. 2022. BARTpho: Pre-trained Sequence-to-Sequence Models for Vietnamese. arXiv:2109.09701 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.09701

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Thanh Vu, Dat Quoc Nguyen, Dai Quoc Nguyen, Mark Dras, and Mark Johnson. 2018. VnCoreNLP: A Vietnamese Natural Language Processing Toolkit. InProceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Demonstrations, Yang...

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Chaojun Xiao, Haoxi Zhong, Zhipeng Guo, Cunchao Tu, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yansong Feng, Xianpei Han, Zhen Hu, Heng Wang, et al. 2018. Cail2018: A large-scale legal dataset for judgment prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.02478(2018)

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Chaojun Xiao, Haoxi Zhong, Zhipeng Guo, Cunchao Tu, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Tianyang Zhang, Xianpei Han, Zhen Hu, Heng Wang, et al

  35. [43]

    Fangyuan Xu, Yixiao Song, Mohit Iyyer, and Eunsol Choi. 2023. A Critical Evaluation of Evaluations for Long-form Question Answering. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Gra...

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    Neural Hype

    Wei Yang, Kuang Lu, Peilin Yang, and Jimmy Lin. 2019. Critically Examining the "Neural Hype": Weak Baselines and the Additivity of Effectiveness Gains from Neural Ranking Models. InProceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Inform...

    2019

  37. [45]

    Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi

    Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT. arXiv:1904.09675 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09675

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Haoxi Zhong, Chaojun Xiao, Cunchao Tu, Tianyang Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2020. How Does NLP Benefit Legal System: A Summary of Legal Artificial Intelligence. InProceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Dan Jurafsky, Jo...

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    Haoxi Zhong, Chaojun Xiao, Cunchao Tu, Tianyang Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2020. JEC-QA: A Legal-Domain Question Answering Dataset.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence34, 05 (Apr. 2020), 9701–9708. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6519 A I...

    2020 doi

  40. [51]

    Ensure that your response is well - structured , concise , and relevant to the question

  41. [52]

    Here is the question and the relevant information to answer that question ### Question : { question } ### Relevant Information : { context } Listing 2

    If the provided information does not contain the answer , state that clearly and suggest seeking further clarification . Here is the question and the relevant information to answer that question ### Question : { question } ### Relevant Information : { context } Listing 2. Few-...

  42. [53]

    It is mandatory to provide answers in Vietnamese

  43. [54]

    Base your answers solely on the provided information and avoid adding any assumptions or external knowledge

  44. [55]

    Manuscript submitted to ACM VLQA: The First Comprehensive, Large, and High-Quality Vietnamese Dataset for Legal Question Answering 25

    Ensure that your response is well - structured , concise , and relevant to the question . Manuscript submitted to ACM VLQA: The First Comprehensive, Large, and High-Quality Vietnamese Dataset for Legal Question Answering 25

  45. [56]

    no going against traffic

    If the provided information does not contain the answer , state that clearly and suggest seeking further clarification . Here are examples of how to answer questions based on the provided information : Example 1: Question : { question_1 } Relevant law articles : { context_1 } ...

    2007

  46. [2019]

    CAIL2019-SCM: a dataset of similar case matching in legal domain.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.08962(2019)

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.