Learning Bill Similarity with Annotated and Augmented Corpora of Bills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bill writing is a critical element of representative democracy. However, it is often overlooked that most legislative bills are derived, or even directly copied, from other bills. Despite the significance of bill-to-bill linkages for understanding the legislative process, existing approaches fail to address semantic similarities across bills, let alone reordering or paraphrasing which are prevalent in legal document writing. In this paper, we overcome these limitations by proposing a 5-class classification task that closely reflects the nature of the bill generation process. In doing so, we construct a human-labeled dataset of 4,721 bill-to-bill relationships at the subsection-level and release this annotated dataset to the research community. To augment the dataset, we generate synthetic data with varying degrees of similarity, mimicking the complex bill writing process. We use BERT variants and apply multi-stage training, sequentially fine-tuning our models with synthetic and human-labeled datasets. We find that the predictive performance significantly improves when training with both human-labeled and synthetic data. Finally, we apply our trained model to infer section- and bill-level similarities. Our analysis shows that the proposed methodology successfully captures the similarities across legal documents at various levels of aggregation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".