Labeling Case Similarity based on Co-Citation of Legal Articles in Judgment Documents with Empirical Dispute-Based Evaluation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This report addresses the challenge of limited labeled datasets for developing legal recommender systems, particularly in specialized domains like labor disputes. We propose a new approach leveraging the co-citation of legal articles within cases to establish similarity and enable algorithmic annotation. This method draws a parallel to the concept of case co-citation, utilizing cited precedents as indicators of shared legal issues. To evaluate the labeled results, we employ a system that recommends similar cases based on plaintiffs' accusations, defendants' rebuttals, and points of disputes. The evaluation demonstrates that the recommender, with finetuned text embedding models and a reasonable BiLSTM module can recommend labor cases whose similarity was measured by the co-citation of the legal articles. This research contributes to the development of automated annotation techniques for legal documents, particularly in areas with limited access to comprehensive legal databases.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Apr 2025.
Builds on
5 of 15 references.
References · 5
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2020Supervised Contrastive Learningcited by 2,829
- 2023MUSER: A Multi-View Similar Case Retrieval Datasetcited by 8
- 2021Evaluating Document Representations for Content-based Legal Literature Recommendationscited by 4
- 2024An empirical evaluation of using ChatGPT to summarize disputes for recommending similar labor and employment cases in Chinesecited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.