Statutory Article Retrieval from Arabic Judicial Narratives: Family Law and Law of Evidence in Saudi Arabia

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.

Legal question answering requires answers that are not only plausible, but also grounded in legally valid and citable evidence. Standard retrieval-augmented generation often relies on one-shot semantic matching, which is insufficient when legal evidence must be selected according to authority, applicability, and diversity across heterogeneous sources. We introduce Legal-R1, an agentic retrieval framework for evidence-based legal reasoning. Legal-R1 decomposes legal reasoning into a multi-agent workflow, where a Lawyer agent learns when to retrieve, which legal source to query, what evidence to seek, and when the collected evidence is sufficient. A Legal Assistant agent retrieves from normative legal sources and precedent cases with authority-aware and diversity-aware selection, while a Judge agent generates the final answer from the complete evidence trajectory. We post-train only the Lawyer agent with masked supervised fine-tuning and trajectory-aware reinforcement learning. Experiments on multiple Chinese legal benchmarks show that Legal-R1 improves over general-purpose, legal-specific, and retrieval-augmented baselines.

Statutory retrieval is necessary for citation-grounded legal question answering, but remains underexplored for Greek. We introduce GreekBarRetrieval, a public retrieval benchmark derived from, and complementing GreekBarBench, which did not include retrieval. The new benchmark comprises 283 bar-exam questions, each accompanied by the facts of the case it refers to, and 6,308 candidate statutory articles to retrieve from. Questions and facts are stated in everyday language, but need to be mapped to the formal terminology of statutes and their abstract legal concepts. A further complication is that not all of the case facts are relevant to each question of a case. Experimenting with three BM25 variants and nine dense retrievers, we find that vanilla dense retrieval far outperforms vanilla sparse retrieval in Recall@100. However, LLM-based query reformulation helps BM25 close that gap, while also improving dense retrieval. With a ten-round ReAct-like LLM reformulation loop that we introduce, BM25 improves further in Recall@100 and obtains the best nDCG and MAP scores of all tested retrievers. Query reformulation also outperforms pseudo-relevance feedback, sparse-dense fusion, and English translation.