Overview and Discussion of the Competition on Legal Information Extraction/Entailment (COLIEE) 2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We summarize the 8th Competition on Legal Information Extraction and Entailment. In this edition, the competition included five tasks on case law and statute law. The case law component includes an information retrieval Task (Task 1), and the confirmation of an entailment relation between an existing case and an unseen case (Task 2). The statute law component includes an information retrieval Task (Task 3), an entailment/question answering task based on retrieved civil code statutes (Task 4) and an entailment/question answering task without retrieved civil code statutes (Task 5). Participation was open to any group based on any approach. Eight different teams participated in the case law competition tasks, most of them in more than one task. We received results from six teams for Task 1 (16 runs) and 6 teams for Task 2 (17 runs). On the statute law task, there were eight different teams participating, most in more than one task. Six teams submitted a total of 18 runs for Task 3, 6 teams submitted a total of 18 runs for Task 4, and 4 teams submitted a total of 12 runs for Task 5. Here we summarize the approaches, our official evaluation, and analysis on our data and submission results.
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 | 0.067 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.026 |
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".