Overall, legal information processing benefits from different inductive biases across tasks, with cross-architecture ensembling, feature-based reranking and retrieval-augmented prompting each proving most effective in different settings.
Abstract
Legal information processing spans retrieval, entailment and judgment prediction problems, requiring text matching, reasoning and robust generalisation with limited supervision. We report Team DU's participation in all five tasks of COLIEE 2026, using open-weight systems for legal case retrieval, case entailment, statute retrieval and entailment, and legal judgment prediction. For Tasks 3 and 4, all models predate the 15 July 2025 cutoff required by the rules. For Task 4 (statute entailment), a cross-architecture ensemble of nine models from three families achieves 96.3% accuracy, placing first among 33 submissions from 11 teams. For the Pilot Task (tort prediction and rationale extraction), a multi-view system combining five claim-level models and refining the verdict using features derived from the claim predictions achieves 73.1% TP accuracy and 68.2% RE F1 as an unofficial submission, scoring above all official entries on TP and matching the highest on RE. For Task 2 (legal case entailment), changing only the prompt from single- to multi-selection raises F1 from 0.343 to 0.555 in post-competition evaluation on released gold labels, exceeding the best official submission (F1 = 0.490). For Task 3 (statute retrieval and entailment), replacing the entailment model with Qwen3-235B and a structured legal reasoning prompt raises accuracy from 79.3% to 91.5% in post-competition analysis. For Task 1 (legal case retrieval), a learning-to-rank system combining lexical and semantic retrieval with structural, citation authority, and temporal features (34 in total) achieves F1 = 0.314 (rank 11 of 54 submissions from 22 teams). Overall, legal information processing benefits from different inductive biases across tasks, with cross-architecture ensembling, feature-based reranking and retrieval-augmented prompting each proving most effective in different settings.
This paper presents the methodologies and results of the NOWJ team's participation across all five tasks of the COLIEE 2026 competition and adopts a retrieval-augmented generation framework with dense retrieval, attention-based reranking, and few-shot-prompted LLM reasoning.
T. Ngo, Hoang-Trung Nguyen, Huu-Dong Nguyen et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
Legal information retrieval demands high precision, yet traditional ''Retrieve-then-Rerank'' pipelines with two separate models suffer from cascading error propagation and knowledge disconnects between stages. To address these issues, we propose RULER, a Robust Unified LLM-based Efficient Retrieval that integrates effi...
Chenyu Hou, Ziyang Wang, Bin Cao et al.· Annual International ACM SIG...· 0 citations
This work introduces an artificial-intelligence-driven legal research assistant tailored to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of India that helps legal practitioners locate relevant precedents, anticipate probable case outcomes, and streamline the overall research process.
Krish P. Gokhale, Tanvi Kshirsagar, Anugraha Kasbe et al.· International Journal for Re...· 0 citations
TabRank is presented, a framework for training reasoning rerankers for Tabular Retrieval that generalizes effectively to multi-table reasoning and significantly improves performance across a variety of table retrieval datasets.
Adarsh Singh, K. Bhandari, Jianxi Gao et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
This work addresses both the End-to-End Flagship Task (Task A) and Ontology Extension Reuse Task (Task B) using an offline retrieval-augmented few-shot prompting pipeline, and achieves Semantic Graph Similarity but no non-taxonomic relations are extracted, highlighting limitations of closed, taxonomy-oriented relation...
Shivam Mishra, Dhannu Ram Meena, M. Ojha et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.