Summary of the Competition on Legal Information, Extraction/Entailment (COLIEE) 2023
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
We summarize the 10th Competition on Legal Information Extraction and Entailment. In this edition, the competition included four 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), and an entailment/question answering task based on retrieved civil code statutes (Task 4). Participation was open to any group based on any approach. Ten different teams participated in the case law competition tasks, most of them in more than one task. We received results from 8 teams for Task 1 (22 runs) and seven teams for Task 2 (18 runs). On the statute law task, there were 9 different teams participating, most in more than one task. 6 teams submitted a total of 16 runs for Task 3, and 9 teams submitted a total of 26 runs for Task 4. We describe the variety of approaches, our official evaluation, and analysis of 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.
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 | 0.000 | 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