Where Experts Disagree, Models Fail: Detecting Implicit Legal Citations in French Court Decisions

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Abstract

Computational methods applied to legal scholarship hold the promise of analyzing law at scale. We start from a simple question: how often do courts implicitly apply statutory rules? This requires distinguishing legal reasoning from semantic similarity. We focus on implicit citation of the French Civil Code in first-instance court decisions and introduce a benchmark of 1,015 passage-article pairs annotated by three legal experts. We show that expert disagreement predicts model failures. Inter-annotator agreement is moderate ($κ$ = 0.33) with 43% of disagreements involving the boundary between factual description and legal reasoning. Our supervised ensemble achieves F1 = 0.70 (77% accuracy), but this figure conceals an asymmetry: 68% of false positives fall on the 33% of cases where the annotators disagreed. Despite these limits, reframing the task as top-k ranking and leveraging multi-model consensus yields 76% precision at k = 200 in an unsupervised setting. Moreover, the remaining false positives tend to surface legally ambiguous applications rather than obvious errors.