CRAwLeR -- Cross-Reference Aware Legal Retrieval

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.21676v1
• Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2026 18:32:44 GMT
• Title: CRAwLeR -- Cross-Reference Aware Legal Retrieval
• Abstract summary: Existing benchmarks for context-aware chunk retrieval rely heavily on repurposed task items.<n>We focus on a specific kind of context dependence, legal cross-references, and introduce CRAwLeR.<n>Our pipeline detects legal cross-references, identifies query candidates, links target chunks to their relevant context, generates context-demanding queries.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Existing benchmarks for context-aware chunk retrieval rely heavily on repurposed task items and rarely demonstrate that their queries genuinely require context, making score interpretation difficult. We focus on a specific kind of context dependence, legal cross-references, and introduce CRAwLeR, an operationalization of a narrow, well-defined phenomenon: cross-reference-aware context utilization for chunk retrieval in legal documents. Our pipeline detects legal cross-references, identifies query candidates, links target chunks to their relevant context, generates context-demanding queries with an LLM, and filters them through both an adversarial non-contextual baseline and an assurance prompt. We release CRAwLeR-DK and CRAwLeR-PL, Danish and Polish datasets built with this pipeline, alongside a strong Anthropic-style contextualization baseline. Manual analysis finds that approximately 80% of randomly sampled queries genuinely target the labelled target chunk and require context, with failures following systematic and named patterns. The benchmarks are hard but not solved: best Recall@10 reaches 55% on CRAwLeR-DK and 59% on CRAwLeR-PL. Ablation and failure analysis attribute the remaining gap to the contextualising LLM, not the retriever. Even when the target is retrieved in the top ten, labelled context chunks routinely outrank it. We are the first dataset for context-aware chunk retrieval to carefully consider construct validity and inspect our results in the light of such a narrow, well-defined phenomenon.

Related papers

• VisDocAgentBench: Benchmarking Agents for Visually Rich Document Retrieval [65.89247522243959]
  VisDocAgentBench is a closed-corpus benchmark comparing static and agentic retrieval under a ranked-output contract.<n>It contains 2,375 pages from 100 documents and 120 unique-target queries balanced across direct, one-bridge, and two-bridge evidence structures.<n>A strong late-interaction visual retriever reaches 97.50% Recall@1 on direct items but 2.50% on two-bridge items, exposing the limits of query--target matching when relevance depends on corpus context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-18T15:23:06Z)
• ReContext: Recursive Evidence Replay as LLM Harness for Long-Context Reasoning [78.94047086588078]
  We propose Recursive Evidence as LLM Harness for Long-Context Reasoning.<n>It is a training-free inference method for improving long-context reasoning.<n> Experiments on eight long-context datasets with 128K context length show it consistently improves evidence utilization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T17:59:26Z)
• Hybrid Pooling with LLMs via Relevance Context Learning [5.10348690267577]
  High-quality relevance judgements over large query sets are essential for evaluating Information Retrieval (IR) systems.<n>LLMs have recently shown promise as automatic relevance assessors, but their reliability is still limited.<n>We introduce Relevance Context Learning (RCL), a novel framework that leverages human relevance judgements to explicitly model topic-specific relevance criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T10:10:22Z)
• Completing Missing Annotation: Multi-Agent Debate for Accurate and Scalable Relevant Assessment for IR Benchmarks [31.017987800426894]
  DREAM is a multi-round debate-based relevance assessment framework with LLM agents.<n>It achieves 95.2% labeling accuracy with only 3.5% human involvement.<n>BRIDGE is a refined benchmark that mitigates evaluation bias and enables fairer retriever comparison.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T09:27:03Z)
• Query-Document Dense Vectors for LLM Relevance Judgment Bias Analysis [4.719505127252616]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been used as relevance assessors for Information Retrieval (IR) evaluation collection creation.<n>We aim to understand if LLMs make systematic mistakes when judging relevance, rather than just understanding how good they are on average.<n>We introduce a clustering-based framework that embeds query-document (Q-D) pairs into a joint semantic space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-05T03:02:33Z)
• LLM-guided Hierarchical Retrieval [54.73080745446999]
  LATTICE is a hierarchical retrieval framework that enables an LLM to reason over and navigate large corpora with logarithmic search complexity.<n>A central challenge in such LLM-guided search is that the model's relevance judgments are noisy, context-dependent, and unaware of the hierarchy.<n>Our framework achieves state-of-the-art zero-shot performance on the reasoning-intensive BRIGHT benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-15T07:05:17Z)
• Reasoning-enhanced Query Understanding through Decomposition and Interpretation [87.56450566014625]
  ReDI is a Reasoning-enhanced approach for query understanding through Decomposition and Interpretation.<n>We compiled a large-scale dataset of real-world complex queries from a major search engine.<n> Experiments on BRIGHT and BEIR demonstrate that ReDI consistently surpasses strong baselines in both sparse and dense retrieval paradigms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T10:58:42Z)
• ImpliRet: Benchmarking the Implicit Fact Retrieval Challenge [50.93758649363798]
  Impliret is a benchmark that shifts the reasoning challenge to document-side processing.<n>We evaluate a range of sparse and dense retrievers, all of which struggle in this setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T11:08:29Z)
• SAGE: A Framework of Precise Retrieval for RAG [9.889395372896153]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has demonstrated significant proficiency in conducting question-answering tasks.<n>RAG methods segment the corpus without considering semantics, making it difficult to find relevant context.<n>We introduce a RAG framework (SAGE) to overcome these limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T16:25:58Z)
• BRIGHT: A Realistic and Challenging Benchmark for Reasoning-Intensive Retrieval [54.54576644403115]
  We introduce BRIGHT, the first text retrieval benchmark that requires intensive reasoning to retrieve relevant documents.<n>Our dataset consists of 1,384 real-world queries spanning diverse domains, such as economics, psychology, mathematics, and coding.<n>We show that incorporating explicit reasoning about the query improves retrieval performance by up to 12.2 points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T17:58:27Z)
• CONFLARE: CONFormal LArge language model REtrieval [0.0]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) frameworks enable large language models (LLMs) to retrieve relevant information from a knowledge base and incorporate it into the context for generating responses. RAG does not guarantee valid responses if retrieval fails to identify the necessary information as the context for response generation. We introduce a four-step framework for applying conformal prediction to quantify retrieval uncertainty in RAG frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T02:58:21Z)
• Cross-lingual Contextualized Phrase Retrieval [63.80154430930898]
  We propose a new task formulation of dense retrieval, cross-lingual contextualized phrase retrieval. We train our Cross-lingual Contextualized Phrase Retriever (CCPR) using contrastive learning. On the phrase retrieval task, CCPR surpasses baselines by a significant margin, achieving a top-1 accuracy that is at least 13 points higher.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T14:46:51Z)

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.