MAP-Law: Coverage-Driven Retrieval Control for Multi-Turn Legal Consultation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Legal consultation is inherently iterative: before giving advice, a system must identify relevant legal elements, gather missing facts and authorities, and determine whether the current evidence is sufficient. Existing retrieval-augmented legal agents often use fixed retrieval budgets or single-shot search, making them insensitive to the evolving coverage state of a consultation. This paper introduces a coverage-driven retrieval-control framework for multi-turn legal consultation. The framework maintains a structured map over user facts, legal elements, retrieval goals, and retrieved evidence, and uses element coverage, evidence validity coverage, and marginal retrieval gain to decide whether to retrieve, clarify, reformulate, or stop. On a 50-case synthetic Chinese labor-law consultation pilot with fixed legal-element schemas, a DeepSeek V4-Pro action-selection variant achieves full measured element coverage under the pilot metric while requiring 3.4 retrieval rounds and 7.1 evidence snippets on average. Diagnostic analyses show that model-backed action selection recovers rule-policy failure cases with a small retrieval-budget increase, while forced continuation mainly increases token and latency costs. These results suggest that legal-element coverage is a useful control signal for adaptive legal retrieval, while remaining bounded to retrieval-control behavior under synthetic fixed-schema conditions rather than deployment-level legal correctness.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 May 2026.
Builds on
29 of 37 references.
References · 29
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,182
- 2020Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answeringcited by 3,824
- 2023Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Modelscited by 3,211
- 2022Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Modelscited by 1,075
- 2023LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 336
- 2021LexGLUE: A Benchmark Dataset for Legal Language Understanding in Englishcited by 310
- 2021CUAD: An Expert-Annotated NLP Dataset for Legal Contract Reviewcited by 236
- 2021When Does Pretraining Help? Assessing Self-Supervised Learning for Law and the CaseHOLD Datasetcited by 201
17 more
- 2024Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Modelscited by 150
- 2021ContractNLI: A Dataset for Document-level Natural Language Inference for Contractscited by 148
- 2020How Does NLP Benefit Legal System: A Summary of Legal Artificial Intelligencecited by 129
- 2023Large Language Models in Law: A Surveycited by 128
- 2023Chatlaw: A Multi-Agent Legal Assistant based on a Role-Aligned Mixture-of-Experts Architecturecited by 122
- 2024LegalBench-RAG: A Benchmark for Retrieval-Augmented Generation in the Legal Domaincited by 118
- 2023LawBench: Benchmarking Legal Knowledge of Large Language Modelscited by 117
- 2019JEC-QA: A Legal-Domain Question Answering Datasetcited by 116
- 2022Pile of Law: Learning Responsible Data Filtering from the Law and a 256GB Open-Source Legal Datasetcited by 113
- 2021Paragraph-level Rationale Extraction through Regularization: A case study on European Court of Human Rights Casescited by 77
- 2023LEXTREME: A Multi-Lingual and Multi-Task Benchmark for the Legal Domaincited by 68
- 2023MultiLegalPile: A 689GB Multilingual Legal Corpuscited by 60
- 2023Natural Language Processing in the Legal Domaincited by 38
- 2016Towards End-to-End Reinforcement Learning of Dialogue Agents for Information Accesscited by 36
- 2025LexRAG: Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Multi-Turn Legal Consultation Conversationcited by 19
- 2024LawLuo: A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework for Multi-Round Chinese Legal Consultationcited by 14
- 2023Finding the Law: Enhancing Statutory Article Retrieval via Graph Neural Networkscited by 9
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026LegalMALR:Multi-Agent Query Understanding and LLM-Based Reranking for Chinese Statute Retrieval
- 2026Legal-R1: Agentic Retrieval for Evidence-Based Legal Reasoning
- 2026Legal-DC: Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Legal Documents
- 2025L-MARS: Legal Multi-Agent System with Agentic Search and Citation-Faithfulness Audit
- 2026When Rules Learn: A Self-Evolving Agent for Legal Case Retrieval
- 2026LawCompass: Navigating from Legal QA to Multi-Agent Deep Research with Grounded Evidence
- 2026LexIssue: Benchmarking Legal Issue Identification in Chinese Civil Litigation
- 2026From Query to Counsel: Structured Reasoning with a Multi-Agent Framework and Dataset for Legal Consultation