cs.CLSep 8, 2026

Reading a Legal Question Word by Word: Embedding Trajectories of 2,144 Vietnamese Legal Headlines

Authors: Tran Minh Quan

Abstract

A dense retriever encodes a question as one vector, but the question arrives one word at a time. We read 2,144 held-out headlines from Thu Vien Phap Luat (Vietnamese legal library) word by word with Nemotron-3-Embed 8B/1B and Qwen3-Embedding 8B/0.6B, encoding 65,444 prefixes against 20,034 articles, plus every prefix of 3,438 sub-questions from 1,112 multi-question headlines and of 168 answers. (i) The gold article becomes rank 1 after a median of 6-7 content words in every encoder, before the interrogative frame is read, and stays there to the end in 78-85% of cases. (ii) In a multi-question headline the lock is inside the first sub-question 94-98% of the time; the second leaves rank unchanged in 89-95%; encoded alone, the second reaches rank 1 in 42-58% vs 91-96% for the first, at the same lock word (95-97% identical). (iii) Numbers, dates and instrument identifiers move the embedding twice as far as content words and four times as far as interrogative words; 72-78% of steps move toward the gold article, and the closing interrogative frame moves against that direction in 95-99% of headlines. (iv) Rank/cosine clustering yields six archetypes (instant, typical, unstable, late, never-locking) that differ by legal area and form (chi-squared p < 1e-8): real-estate and litigation headlines never lock on a number; environmental and accounting headlines do so a third of the time. (v) An answer read word by word retrieves its article after 8-16 words and addresses the sub-questions in order asked in 83-89% of cases. (vi) A word's step keeps a consistent direction across headlines (cosine 0.25-0.33; 0.44-0.60 for numbers); a preceding question rotates that step by about 60 degrees and a greeting by about 30 degrees; steps shrink as i^{-0.8}; and a two-question headline is within 12-17 degrees of a linear mix of its two questions. We call this a context-modulated additive walk.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jul 7, 2026cs.CL

Inject or Navigate? Token-Efficient Retrieval for LLM Analysis of Transactional Legal Documents

Answering questions over a set of transactional legal documents is most simply done by injecting the whole corpus into the LLM's context window on every query. That baseline maximises retrieval recall, but its token footprint scales with the corpus rather than the question, and long-context degradation scales with it. We report what it took to replace full-corpus injection in a legal-document analysis system, comparing it against two structured retrieval modes over our proprietary structure-aware chunking: embedding retrieval (NAVEMBED) and LLM navigation over a compact structured index (NAVINDEX). On a 20-question benchmark with verified ground-truth answers, a position-bias-controlled, reference-anchored pairwise judge scored semantic retrieval with reranking tied with injection on 16 of 18 document-bound questions (injection preferred on 2) while attending to 17.3x fewer input tokens (a general-text-embedding (GTE) configuration reaches 29.9x at a lower tie rate); both modes were judged tied on the 2 out-of-scope controls. NAVINDEX was judged tied on all 18 at a 1.61x smaller total token footprint, a ~56x smaller answering context, and 25% lower dollar cost. We derive a closed-form caching-crossover rule: cached injection is cheaper in dollars only while the corpus stays below roughly ten times the retrieval payload. Scope and uncertainty are quantified in Section 8.
Mahmoud Hany, Mourad ElSheraey, Mahmoud Said +1
High-Quality Legal CorpusCorpusNavigation
AskPDF
Jun 2, 2026cs.CL

Re-Ranking Through an Attribution Lens for Citation Quality in Legal QA

Retrieval-augmented generation systems for legal question answering typically retrieve passages based on semantic similarity and provide them to a language model, which then generates cited answers. Prior work assumes that highly ranked passages are most likely to be usefully cited by the model. Perturbation-based attribution methods, such as C-LIME, have been used exclusively for post-hoc explanation. However, on the AQuAECHR benchmark, semantic similarity does not correlate with passage attribution. Within a retriever's candidate pool, similarity-based ranking performs worse than random selection at surfacing gold citation paragraphs. To address this limitation, a lightweight cross-encoder is trained on continuous perturbation-based attribution scores to re-rank passages prior to generation. This approach is evaluated on the AQuAECHR benchmark, using two language models and five-fold cross-validation. The re-ranker substantially improves citation faithfulness and alignment with gold expert answers. Notably, two re-rankers trained independently on different models converge beyond their raw attribution agreement. This finding indicates that the cross-encoder reduces model-specific noise and produces a shared relevance signal that partially transfers across models, although same-model re-ranking remains more effective. These results demonstrate that perturbation-based attribution provides a practical, model-agnostic training signal for citation-aware retrieval.
Mohamed Hesham Elganayni, Selim Saleh
Llm-Based Statutory Question AnsweringCitationsRerankingRetrieval-Augmented GenerationRelevanceAttribution Methods
AskPDF
Jul 13, 2026cs.CL

Cross-Architecture LLM Ensembles, Feature-Based Reranking and Retrieval-Augmented Prompting for Legal Information Processing

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.
Amal Saad Alshehri, Nelly Bencomo, Amir Atapour-Abarghouei
High-Quality Legal CorpusEntailmentLarge Language Model BaselinesReranking
AskPDF