legal document analysts

Abstract: Despite the success of neural models in natural language processing, their black-box nature limits interpretability and conceals the linguistic phenomena underlying their predictions. We present SLITE, an explainable hybrid model for Recognizing Textual Entailment that integrates two complementary layers of semantic analysis: a structural-relational layer, based on semantic compatibility and incompatibility between compositional entities, and a distributional-informational layer, based on structured patterns of information change between embedding-based representations of the premise and the hypothesis. We propose 17 features that combine entity-level semantic relations, polarity-sensitive lexical matching, and alignment measures over semantic sub-representations of the similarity matrix, including measures based on entropy and transfer entropy. A logistic regression trained on these features achieves an accuracy of 83% on three-class SICK and 96% on SICK-CE, outperforming IsoLex by 4 percentage points and falling within 2 percentage points of RoBERTa with a fraction of its computational complexity. Ablation studies and SHAP analysis confirm that structural-relational features are the primary drivers of classification, while distributional-informational features provide essential complementary contributions, particularly for detecting neutrality and contradiction. Our results demonstrate that further exploration of hybrid approaches is a viable and scientifically productive alternative to massive neural architectures, and we hope they will strengthen the dialogue between linguistic theory and computational modeling of inference

Abstract: How should natural language processing models be selected and adapted for global health literature in environments where annotated data and computational resources are limited? This thesis investigates these challenges through experiments on semantic tag discovery, named entity recognition (NER), and multi-label topic classification. First, skip-gram word2vec models trained on progressively larger specialized corpora are compared with BioWordVec to assess how corpus size and domain context influence tag discovery. Vocabulary coverage and qualitative evaluation indicate that broader coverage does not necessarily yield more useful domain-specific associations. The analysis then turns to entity extraction, comparing convolutional spaCy models with a RoBERTa-based transformer on 1,000 annotated sentences. Under a lenient scoring protocol, the transformer achieves 0.80 micro-F1 versus 0.65-0.69 for convolutional models, but takes 82 seconds rather than 5-6 seconds. This trade-off motivates fine-tuning convolutional models and integrating a disease recognizer that achieves 81.33% test F1 on the NCBI Disease Corpus. Combined with PDF preprocessing, entity filtering, and MeSH enrichment, the resulting pipeline supports document-level indexing. To complement entity extraction with thematic annotation, MiniLM-based few-shot classification is compared with BART-MNLI zero-shot inference across 50 topics and 1,000 handcrafted test sentences. BART-MNLI achieves 95.2% single-label accuracy versus 59%; reported multi-label accuracies are 88% and 32% under partly manual assessment. However, its higher inference cost limits practical integration. The results show where domain specialization and lightweight adaptation offer practical value, and where transformer accuracy justifies higher inference costs, providing an empirical basis for building knowledge systems under resource constraints.

Abstract: Prior case retrieval (PCR) aims to identify precedent cases relevant to a given query case. Existing PCR benchmarks and methods predominantly operate at the document level, treating entire judgments as the unit of relevance. This formulation is suboptimal for legal practitioners, as judgments address multiple legal issues and only a small subset of paragraphs is relevant to a particular query. Addressing this gap, we introduce UK-PRBench, a benchmark for paragraph-level precedent retrieval in UK case law, constructed from judgments obtained from the UK National Archives and covering a broad range of UK courts and tribunals. Furthermore, we evaluate state-of-the-art retrieval models and establish baseline results. Our experiments show that paragraph-level precedent retrieval remains challenging for current retrieval approaches, highlighting substantial room for improvement. UK-PRBench provides a standardised benchmark for evaluating fine-grained precedent retrieval and advancing retrieval systems for the UK legal domain.

Abstract: Scientific agents support a range of literature-based research tasks, such as retrieval, question answering, evidence-grounded generation, and claim assessment. Most existing systems, however, are organized around individual tasks: the same papers are repeatedly retrieved, segmented, and interpreted, and the understanding built in one task is difficult to reuse in the next. We present ScholarStack, a layered research asset framework that compiles a paper collection into reusable, versioned, and provenance-preserving assets at three complementary levels: source-grounded paper-level statements, domain-level organization, and evidence-grounded cross-paper syntheses. A common access interface returns task-specific views at the evidence granularity each task requires, preserving study conditions, source traceability, and verification status. We instantiate the framework on four task families spanning ten task settings, comparing agents that use the compiled assets with task-specific baselines under matched base models. Quality gains concentrate on tasks that require cross-paper evidence, such as multi-paper question answering and literature review generation, and query-time token cost falls on every task where it is measured, with assets compiled once and reused across tasks. These results suggest that layered research assets can serve as shared infrastructure for scientific agents, shifting literature-based assistance from isolated document processing toward cumulative, evidence-grounded workflows.

Abstract: As Large Language Model (LLM) APIs become increasingly integrated into privacy-sensitive workflows, ensuring inference-time privacy without compromising task utility remains a major challenge. Existing approaches preserve most of the original semantic content to maintain downstream performance, but this also leaves exploitable cues for reconstructing the original text. This work investigates semantic decoupling, which replaces original semantics with alternative content while preserving the structure needed for LLM reasoning. Based on this idea, we propose CROSS-MAP, a bidirectional framework that maps private inputs into a different semantic domain before inference and recovers the corresponding outputs afterward. Local models are trained with multi-objective optimization to maximize semantic divergence in the mapping stage while minimizing semantic inconsistency in the recovery stage. Experiments show that CROSS-MAP reduces reconstruction success across multiple attack settings while outperforming existing baselines in utility.

Abstract: We describe our system for LitTraceQA (GroundLM @ EMNLP 2026): given a research question, retrieve the relevant papers from a pool of 27,487, cite the page and the table or figure where the answer lives, and answer in a requested format. Our main finding is that evidence grounding is limited by retrieval, not by reading. The page selector put the annotator's page, which we call the gold page, in front of the model that locates evidence only about half the time (52.6% gold-page recall), while that model, given the page, cited the right one in 45 of the 48 locators it emitted (94%). When the page was missing it rarely said so: of 45 such cases it returned nothing 14 times, a wrong page 24 times, and a correct page 7 times, so the pipeline failed quietly almost twice as often as it failed visibly. Since the failure was that the right page was never shown, the fix is to stop choosing: each retrieved paper fits in the model's context, so we show it whole. Page ranking survives only as a fallback inside papers too long to fit, which no test-split paper was, and gold-page recall reaches 100% on the papers we can parse. Separately, questions that identify their target by position rather than content, such as "the first author of the 24th reference", are served by parsing rather than retrieval: we resolve the bibliography into an addressable list, which also supplies identifiers the evidence metric scores. The final system scores 0.762 paper $F_1$, 0.441 evidence $F_1$ and 0.920 multiple-choice accuracy on the held-out test split. Because the pipeline depends on a closed model without seed control, we release a harness that verifies the paper's central claims against committed artifacts.

Abstract: Accurate citations are the foundation of academic writing, tracing intellectual origins and substantiating core claims. However, manually navigating the growing volume of scientific literature is increasingly difficult, prompting reliance on automatic citation recommendation. While modern retrieval-augmented architectures have largely mitigated the fabrication of non-existent papers, current systems relying on semantic similarity struggle with misattribution, often citing authentic papers that fail to logically support the author's claim. To address this challenge, we argue that accurate citation requires a shift from similarity-based search to active, claim-level reasoning. We propose ReCite, a decoupled agentic framework that orchestrates location perception, intent-aware query planning, and reflective verification. Trained on synthesized reasoning trajectories, our agent verifies claim-evidence consistency and triggers self-correction loops when retrieved candidates lack logical support. Experiments demonstrate that our lightweight framework outperforms state-of-the-art massive generative models in strict citation accuracy. By grounding literature matching in verifiable logic rather than semantic overlap, ReCite establishes a reliable foundation for automated academic writing.

Abstract: Topic modeling is widely used in computational social sciences to identify latent themes in large text corpora. Traditional approaches rely on Bag-of-Words representations and generative models such as LDA, while recent methods like BERTopic operate on dense document embeddings. This paper introduces the Structural Contextual Probabilistic Topic Model (SCPTM), an architecture that incorporates syntactic dependency relations into topic inference. SCPTM represents a corpus as a heterogeneous graph of documents and words connected by lexical and syntactic edges, processed through a Graph Attention Network within a Variational Autoencoder to produce probabilistic, mixed-membership topic distributions. We evaluate seven topic modeling techniques (including four SCPTM ablations) across four corpora differing in register and discourse structure. Our framework combines coherence (C_V, C_NPMI), topic diversity, clustering-label alignment (NMI), and phrase-level diagnostics (complementarity and valence gap). Results show that SCPTM's neural architecture yields substantial gains in document-topic alignment over generative baselines, but these gains are attributable to the variational encoder rather than to syntax. Syntax contributes to topic diversity, where graph-augmented variants outperform the no-graph baseline across all corpora, and to descriptor quality: dependency paths capture predicate-argument structures and stance in deliberative registers, while proving redundant in technical and institutional corpora. The valence gap is positive across all variants, but driven primarily by phrase grouping rather than syntactic filtering. We conclude that syntactic encoding matters conditionally: it benefits action-oriented, argumentative texts, but introduces noise in informational or administrative registers.