GLIER: Generative Legal Inference and Evidence Ranking for Legal Case Retrieval

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.23779v1
• Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:02:59 GMT
• Title: GLIER: Generative Legal Inference and Evidence Ranking for Legal Case Retrieval
• Abstract summary: GLIER (Generative Legal Inference and Evidence Ranking) is a framework that reformulates retrieval as an inference process over latent legal variables.<n>First, a Joint Generative Inference module translates raw queries into latent legal indicators, including charges and legal elements.<n>Second, a Multi-View Evidence Fusion mechanism aggregates generative confidence with structural and lexical signals for precise ranking.
• Score: 21.760917997629317
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The semantic gap between colloquial user queries and professional legal documents presents a fundamental challenge in Legal Case Retrieval (LCR). Existing dense retrieval methods typically treat LCR as a black-box semantic matching process, neglecting the explicit juridical logic that underpins legal relevance. To address this, we propose GLIER (Generative Legal Inference and Evidence Ranking), a framework that reformulates retrieval as an inference process over latent legal variables. GLIER decomposes the task into two interpretability-driven stages. First, a Joint Generative Inference module translates raw queries into latent legal indicators, including charges and legal elements, using a unified sequence-to-sequence strategy that jointly generates charges and elements to enforce logical consistency. Second, a Multi-View Evidence Fusion mechanism aggregates generative confidence with structural and lexical signals for precise ranking. Extensive experiments on LeCaRD and LeCaRDv2 demonstrate that GLIER outperforms strong baselines such as SAILER and KELLER. Notably, GLIER exhibits strong data efficiency, maintaining robust performance even when trained with only 10% of the data.

Related papers

• Generative Chinese Statute Retrieval [35.02524712712555]
  We propose a generative statute retrieval framework that internalizes statutory knowledge into a generative model.<n>Experiments show that GCSR consistently outperforms strong sparse, dense, and legal-domain baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T05:38:50Z)
• From Norms to Indicators (N2I-RAG): An Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for Legal Indicator Computation [0.0]
  This paper presents N2I-RAG, an agentic retrieval-augmented generation framework designed to automate the computation of legal indicators.<n>We integrate adaptive retrieval, llm-based agents, and validation mechanisms in a modular pipeline, where each component performs a defined role in filtering, retrieving, and assessing evidence.<n>We evaluate N2I-RAG using an in-house constructed French marine environmental law corpus that includes both scanned and digital sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T12:21:48Z)
• Enhancing Judgment Document Generation via Agentic Legal Information Collection and Rubric-Guided Optimization [30.089203895815384]
  Existing approaches, typically relying on standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation and Supervised Fine-Tuning, often suffer from insufficient evidence recall, hallucinated statutory references, and flawed legal reasoning.<n>We propose Judge-R1, a unified framework designed to logically enhance LLM-based judgment document generation by jointly improving legal information collection and judgment document generation.<n>Experiments on the JuDGE benchmark demonstrate that Judge-R1 significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in both legal accuracy and generation quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-03T18:32:10Z)
• LegalOne: A Family of Foundation Models for Reliable Legal Reasoning [54.57434222018289]
  We present LegalOne, a family of foundational models specifically tailored for the Chinese legal domain.<n>LegalOne is developed through a comprehensive three-phase pipeline designed to master legal reasoning.<n>We publicly release the LegalOne weights and the LegalKit evaluation framework to advance the field of Legal AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T10:18:32Z)
• GLARE: Agentic Reasoning for Legal Judgment Prediction [60.13483016810707]
  Legal judgment prediction (LJP) has become increasingly important in the legal field.<n>Existing large language models (LLMs) have significant problems of insufficient reasoning due to a lack of legal knowledge.<n>We introduce GLARE, an agentic legal reasoning framework that dynamically acquires key legal knowledge by invoking different modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T13:38:12Z)
• LegalSearchLM: Rethinking Legal Case Retrieval as Legal Elements Generation [9.894351313663874]
  Legal Case Retrieval (LCR) is a fundamental task for legal professionals.<n>Existing studies on LCR face two major limitations.<n>First, they are evaluated on relatively small-scale retrieval corpora.<n>Second, their reliance on embedding-based or lexical matching methods often results in limited representations and legally irrelevant matches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T09:02:41Z)
• A Law Reasoning Benchmark for LLM with Tree-Organized Structures including Factum Probandum, Evidence and Experiences [76.73731245899454]
  We propose a transparent law reasoning schema enriched with hierarchical factum probandum, evidence, and implicit experience.<n>Inspired by this schema, we introduce the challenging task, which takes a textual case description and outputs a hierarchical structure justifying the final decision.<n>This benchmark paves the way for transparent and accountable AI-assisted law reasoning in the Intelligent Court''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T10:26:54Z)
• How Vital is the Jurisprudential Relevance: Law Article Intervened Legal Case Retrieval and Matching [31.378981566988063]
  Legal case retrieval (LCR) aims to automatically scour for comparable legal cases based on a given query.<n>To address them, a daunting challenge is assessing the uniquely defined legal-rational similarity within the judicial domain.<n>We propose an end-to-end model named LCM-LAI to solve the above challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T15:29:07Z)
• LegalSeg: Unlocking the Structure of Indian Legal Judgments Through Rhetorical Role Classification [6.549338652948716]
  We introduce LegalSeg, the largest annotated dataset for this task, comprising over 7,000 documents and 1.4 million sentences, labeled with 7 rhetorical roles.<n>Our results demonstrate that models incorporating broader context, structural relationships, and sequential sentence information outperform those relying solely on sentence-level features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-09T10:07:05Z)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• SAILER: Structure-aware Pre-trained Language Model for Legal Case Retrieval [75.05173891207214]
  Legal case retrieval plays a core role in the intelligent legal system. Most existing language models have difficulty understanding the long-distance dependencies between different structures. We propose a new Structure-Aware pre-traIned language model for LEgal case Retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-22T10:47:01Z)
• GERE: Generative Evidence Retrieval for Fact Verification [57.78768817972026]
  We propose GERE, the first system that retrieves evidences in a generative fashion. The experimental results on the FEVER dataset show that GERE achieves significant improvements over the state-of-the-art baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-12T03:49:35Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.