Legal Information Retrieval and Entailment Based on BM25, Transformer and Semantic Thesaurus Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe the techniques applied by the University of Alberta (UA) team in the most recent Competition on Legal Information Extraction and Entailment (COLIEE 2021). We participated in retrieval and entailment tasks for both case law and statute law; we applied a transformer-based approach for the case law entailment task, an information retrieval technique based on BM25 for legal information retrieval, and a natural language inference mechanism using semantic knowledge applied to statute law texts. This competition included 25 teams from 14 countries; our case law entailment approach was ranked no. 4 in Task 2, the BM25 technique for legal information retrieval was ranked no. 3 in Task 3, and the natural language inference technique incorporating semantic information was ranked no. 4 in Task 4. The combination of the latter two techniques on Task 5 was ranked no. 2. We also performed error analysis of our system in Task 4, which provides some insight into current state-of-the-art and research priorities for future directions.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".