Representation Learning and Similarity of Legal Judgements using Citation Networks
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
India and many other countries like UK, Australia, Canada follow the ‘common law system’ which gives substantial importance to prior related cases in determining the outcome of the current case. Better similarity methods can help in finding earlier similar cases, which can help lawyers searching for precedents. Prior approaches in computing similarity of legal judgements use a basic representation which is either abag-of-words or dense embedding which is learned by only using the words present in the document. They, however, either neglect or do not emphasize the vital ‘legal’ information in the judgements, e.g. citations to prior cases, act and article numbers or names etc. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to learn the embeddings of legal documents using the citationnetwork of documents. Experimental results demonstrate that the learned embedding is at par with the state-of-the-art methods for document similarity on a standard legal dataset.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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