Digging Up Citations: FOSSIL, a Dataset and Workflow for Reference Extraction in Law and the Humanities

Half a billion citation edges extracted from 100.7 million Ukrainian court decisions reveal that judicial citation structure encodes legal domain boundaries without supervision and predicts future legislative importance with near-perfect accuracy. We construct the first large-scale citation graph from the complete EDRSR registry (99.5 million full texts, 1.1 TB), extracting 502 million citation links across six types via regex on commodity hardware in approximately 5 hours, with precision of 1.00 on a 200-decision validation sample (95% Wilson CI: [0.982, 1.000]). Three principal findings emerge. (1) The degree distribution follows a power law (alpha = 1.57 +/- 0.008), placing the Ukrainian court network near the EU Court of Justice and below the US Supreme Court, with hub articles cited by millions of decisions. (2) Louvain community detection on the co-citation projection recovers legal domain boundaries (civil, criminal, administrative, commercial) with modularity Q = 0.44-0.55 and temporal stability (NMI = 0.83-0.86 across periods), constituting an automatically constructed legal ontology grounded in judicial practice. (3) Citation features predict top-1000 articles with AUC = 0.9984, substantially outperforming a naive frequency baseline (P@1000 = 0.655); temporal dynamics detect legislative regime changes as phase transitions and the 2022 invasion as a citation entropy spike (H: 11.02 -> 13.49) with emergent wartime legislation nodes. The citation-derived ontology is operationalized as the domain layer of a workflow memory system for LLM-assisted legal analysis, connecting to the ontology-controlled paradigm. The extraction pipeline, analysis code, and aggregated statistics are released as open data.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into legal drafting and research workflows, where incorrect citations or fabricated precedents can cause serious professional harm. Existing legal benchmarks largely emphasize statutory reasoning, contract understanding, or general legal question answering, but they do not directly study a central common-law failure mode: when asked to provide case authorities without external grounding, models may return plausible-looking but incorrect citations or cases. We introduce LegalCiteBench, a benchmark for studying closed-book citation recovery, citation verification, and case matching in legal language models. LegalCiteBench contains approximately 24K evaluation instances constructed from 1,000 real U.S. judicial opinions from the Case Law Access Project. The benchmark covers five citation-centric tasks: citation retrieval, citation completion, citation error detection, case matching, and case verification and correction. Across 21 LLMs, exact citation recovery remains highly challenging in this closed-book setting: even the strongest models score below 7/100 on citation retrieval and completion. Within the evaluated models, scale and legal-domain pretraining provide limited gains and do not resolve this difficulty. Models also frequently provide concrete but incorrect or low-overlap authorities under our evaluation protocol, with Misleading Answer Rates (MAR) exceeding 94% for 20 of 21 evaluated models on retrieval-heavy tasks. A prompt-only abstention experiment shows that explicit uncertainty instructions reduce some confident fabrication but do not improve citation correctness. LegalCiteBench is intended as a diagnostic framework for studying authority generation failures, verification behavior, and abstention when external grounding is absent, incomplete, or bypassed.

Long-form legal research reports increasingly rely on LLMs and agentic research systems, but their reliability depends not only on answering the task, but also on whether cited legal authorities are trustworthy. A citation can be risky even when it points to a real source: the report may omit limiting conditions, misdescribe the authority, or use it to support a stronger claim than the source allows. We introduce LegalCiteTrust, a benchmark for evaluating citation trustworthiness in Chinese long-form legal research reports. It contains 72 densely annotated report-level tasks and evaluates reports along three dimensions: Coverage, Support, and Citation Trustworthiness. Citation Trustworthiness is operationalized through citation-level Existence, Fidelity, and Applicability (E/F/A). Experiments on general-purpose LLMs, deep-research systems, and legal-specific systems show that task completion, evidence richness, citation density, and citation reliability expose different system behaviors. Retrieval tools can improve evidence support without reliably improving the Trust score, while E/F/A-based revision improves Trust and Final score more clearly than existence-only filtering. These results suggest that trustworthy legal research generation requires citation-aware evidence governance after retrieval: systems must not only retrieve legal authorities, but also select, describe, and apply them reliably.