Two-step cascaded textual entailment for legal bar exam question answering
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our legal question answering system combines legal information retrieval and textual entailment, and exploits semantic information using a logic-based representation. We have evaluated our system using the data from the competition on legal information extraction/entailment (COLIEE)-2017. The competition focuses on the legal information processing required to answer yes/no questions from Japanese legal bar exams, and it consists of two phases: ad hoc legal information retrieval (Phase 1), and textual entailment (Phase 2). Phase 1 requires the identification of Japan civil law articles relevant to a legal bar exam query. For this phase, we have used an information retrieval approach using TF-IDF combined with a simple language model. Phase 2 requires a yes/no decision for previously unseen queries, which we approach by comparing the approximate meanings of queries with relevant statutes. Our meaning extraction process uses a selection of features based on a kind of paraphrase, coupled with a condition/conclusion/exception analysis of articles and queries. We also extract and exploit negation patterns from the articles. We construct a logic-based representation as a semantic analysis result, and then classify questions into easy and difficult types by analyzing the logic representation. If a question is in our easy category, we simply obtain the entailment answer from the logic representation; otherwise we use an unsupervised learning method to obtain the entailment answer. Experimental evaluation shows that our result ranked highest in the Phase 2 amongst all COLIEE-2017 competitors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it