Legal information retrieval

Legal information retrieval is the science of information retrieval applied to legal text, including legislation, case law, and scholarly works. Accurate legal information retrieval is important to provide access to the law to laymen and legal professionals. Its importance has increased because of the vast and quickly increasing amount of legal documents available through electronic means. Legal information retrieval is a part of the growing field of legal informatics. In a legal setting, it is frequently important to retrieve all information related to a specific query. However, commonly used boolean search methods (exact matches of specified terms) on full text legal documents have been shown to have an average recall rate as low as 20 percent, meaning that only 1 in 5 relevant documents are actually retrieved. In that case, researchers believed that they had retrieved over 75% of relevant documents. This may result in failing to retrieve important or precedential cases. In some jurisdictions this may be especially problematic, as legal professionals are ethically obligated to be reasonably informed as to relevant legal documents. Legal Information Retrieval attempts to increase the effectiveness of legal searches by increasing the number of relevant documents (providing a high recall rate) and reducing the number of irrelevant documents (a high precision rate). This is a difficult task, as the legal field is prone to jargon, polysemes (words that have different meanings when used in a legal context), and constant change. Techniques used to achieve these goals generally fall into three categories: boolean retrieval, manual classification of legal text, and natural language processing of legal text. == Problems == Application of standard information retrieval techniques to legal text can be more difficult than application in other subjects. One key problem is that the law rarely has an inherent taxonomy. Instead, the law is generally filled with open-ended terms, which may change over time. This can be especially true in common law countries, where each decided case can subtly change the meaning of a certain word or phrase. Legal information systems must also be programmed to deal with law-specific words and phrases. Though this is less problematic in the context of words which exist solely in law, legal texts also frequently use polysemes, words may have different meanings when used in a legal or common-speech manner, potentially both within the same document. The legal meanings may be dependent on the area of law in which it is applied. For example, in the context of European Union legislation, the term "worker" has four different meanings: Any worker as defined in Article 3(a) of Directive 89/391/EEC who habitually uses display screen equipment as a significant part of his normal work. Any person employed by an employer, including trainees and apprentices but excluding domestic servants; Any person carrying out an occupation on board a vessel, including trainees and apprentices, but excluding port pilots and shore personnel carrying out work on board a vessel at the quayside; Any person who, in the Member State concerned, is protected as an employee under national employment law and in accordance with national practice; It also has the common meaning: A person who works at a specific occupation. Though the terms may be similar, correct information retrieval must differentiate between the intended use and irrelevant uses in order to return the correct results. Even if a system overcomes the language problems inherent in law, it must still determine the relevancy of each result. In the context of judicial decisions, this requires determining the precedential value of the case. Case decisions from senior or superior courts may be more relevant than those from lower courts, even where the lower court's decision contains more discussion of the relevant facts. The opposite may be true, however, if the senior court has only a minor discussion of the topic (for example, if it is a secondary consideration in the case). An information retrieval system must also be aware of the authority of the jurisdiction. A case from a binding authority is most likely of more value than one from a non-binding authority. Additionally, the intentions of the user may determine which cases they find valuable. For instance, where a legal professional is attempting to argue a specific interpretation of law, he might find a minor court's decision which supports his position more valuable than a senior courts position which does not. He may also value similar positions from different areas of law, different jurisdictions, or dissenting opinions. Overcoming these problems can be made more difficult because of the large number of cases available. The number of legal cases available via electronic means is constantly increasing (in 2003, US appellate courts handed down approximately 500 new cases per day), meaning that an accurate legal information retrieval system must incorporate methods of both sorting past data and managing new data. == Techniques == === Boolean searches === Boolean searches, where a user may specify terms such as use of specific words or judgments by a specific court, are the most common type of search available via legal information retrieval systems. They are widely implemented but overcome few of the problems discussed above. The recall and precision rates of these searches vary depending on the implementation and searches analyzed. One study found a basic boolean search's recall rate to be roughly 20%, and its precision rate to be roughly 79%. Another study implemented a generic search (that is, not designed for legal uses) and found a recall rate of 56% and a precision rate of 72% among legal professionals. Both numbers increased when searches were run by non-legal professionals, to a 68% recall rate and 77% precision rate. This is likely explained because of the use of complex legal terms by the legal professionals. === Manual classification === In order to overcome the limits of basic boolean searches, information systems have attempted to classify case laws and statutes into more computer friendly structures. Usually, this results in the creation of an ontology to classify the texts, based on the way a legal professional might think about them. These attempt to link texts on the basis of their type, their value, and/or their topic areas. Most major legal search providers now implement some sort of classification search, such as Westlaw's “Natural Language” or LexisNexis' Headnote searches. Additionally, both of these services allow browsing of their classifications, via Westlaw's West Key Numbers or Lexis' Headnotes. Though these two search algorithms are proprietary and secret, it is known that they employ manual classification of text (though this may be computer-assisted). These systems can help overcome the majority of problems inherent in legal information retrieval systems, in that manual classification has the greatest chances of identifying landmark cases and understanding the issues that arise in the text. In one study, ontological searching resulted in a precision rate of 82% and a recall rate of 97% among legal professionals. The legal texts included, however, were carefully controlled to just a few areas of law in a specific jurisdiction. The major drawback to this approach is the requirement of using highly skilled legal professionals and large amounts of time to classify texts. As the amount of text available continues to increase, some have stated their belief that manual classification is unsustainable. === Natural language processing === In order to reduce the reliance on legal professionals and the amount of time needed, efforts have been made to create a system to automatically classify legal text and queries. Adequate translation of both would allow accurate information retrieval without the high cost of human classification. These automatic systems generally employ Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques that are adapted to the legal domain, and also require the creation of a legal ontology. Though multiple systems have been postulated, few have reported results. One system, “SMILE,” which attempted to automatically extract classifications from case texts, resulted in an f-measure (which is a calculation of both recall rate and precision) of under 0.3 (compared to perfect f-measure of 1.0). This is probably much lower than an acceptable rate for general usage. Despite the limited results, many theorists predict that the evolution of such systems will eventually replace manual classification systems. === Citation-Based ranking === In the mid-90s the Room 5 case law retrieval project used citation mining for summaries and ranked its search results based on citation type and count. This slightly pre-dated the PageRank algorithm at Stanford which was also a citation-based ranking. Ranking of results was based

Zero-knowledge service

In cloud computing, the term zero-knowledge (or occasionally no-knowledge or zero-access) is a commonly used term for online services that store, transfer or manipulate data with a high level of confidentiality, where the data is only accessible to the data's owner (the client), and not to the service provider. However, unlike "end-to-end encryption", the term "zero-knowledge" does not imply any specific threat model or security notion, and its use is commonly frowned-upon by the security community. The term "zero-knowledge" was popularized by backup service SpiderOak, which later switched to using the term "no knowledge", acknowledging that the previous terminology was not technically accurate. == Disadvantages == Most cloud storage services keep a copy of the client's password on their servers, allowing clients who have lost their passwords to retrieve and decrypt their data using alternative means of authentication; but since zero-knowledge services do not store copies of clients' passwords, if a client loses their password then their data cannot be decrypted, making it practically unrecoverable. Most of the most used cloud storage services, such as Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive or iCloud, are also able to furnish access requests from law enforcement agencies for similar reasons; zero-knowledge services, however, are unable to do so, since their systems are designed to make clients' data inaccessible without the client's explicit cooperation.

Data exchange

Data exchange is the process of moving data from one information system to another. It often involves transforming data that is native to the source system into a form that is consumable by the target system or to a standardized form that is consumable by any compatible system. In particular, data exchange allows data to be shared between computer programs. Data exchange is similar to data integration except that data may be restructured with possible loss of content. There may be no way to transform a particular collection based on exchange constraints. Conversely, there may be multiple ways to transform the data, in which case one option must be identified in order to achieve compatibility between source and target. There are two main types of data exchange: broadcast and peer-to-peer (a.k.a. unicast). For broadcast, data is transmitted simultaneously to all consumers. Just as a conference call, all participants get the same information from the speaker at the same time. For peer-to-peer, data is sent to a single receiver, defined by a specific address. For example, a letter goes to just one mail box. == Single-domain == In some domains, a multiple source and target schema (proprietary data formats) may exist. An exchange or interchange format is often developed for a single domain, and then necessary routines (mappings) are written to (indirectly) transform/translate each and every source schema to each and every target schema by using the interchange format as an intermediate step. That requires less work than writing and debugging the many routines that would be required to directly translate each source schema directly to each target schema. Examples of these transformative interchange formats include: Standard Interchange Format for geospatial data; Data Interchange Format for spreadsheet data; Open Document Format for spreadsheets, charts, presentations and word processing documents; GPS eXchange Format or Keyhole Markup Language for describing GPS data; GDSII for integrated circuit layout. == Representation == A data exchange (a.k.a. interchange) language defines a domain-independent way to represent data. These languages have evolved from being markup and display-oriented to support the encoding of metadata that describes the structural attributes of the information. Practice has shown that certain types of formal languages are better suited for this task than others, since their specification is driven by a formal process instead of particular software implementation. For example, XML is a markup language that was designed to enable the creation of dialects (the definition of domain-specific sublanguages). However, it does not contain domain-specific dictionaries or fact types. Beneficial to a reliable data exchange is the availability of standard dictionaries-taxonomies and tools libraries such as parsers, schema validators, and transformation tools. === XML === The popularity of XML for data exchange on the World Wide Web has several reasons. First of all, it is closely related to the preexisting standards Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) and Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), and as such a parser written to support these two languages can be easily extended to support XML as well. For example, XHTML has been defined as a format that is formal XML, but understood correctly by most (if not all) HTML parsers. === YAML === YAML was designed to be human-readable and authored via a text editor with notion similar to reStructuredText and wiki syntax. YAML 1.2 also includes a shorthand notion that is compatible with JSON, and as such any JSON document is also valid YAML; this however does not hold the other way. === REBOL === REBOL was designed to be human-readable and authored via a text editor. It uses a simple free-form syntax with minimal punctuation and a rich set of data types (such as URL, email, date and time, tuple, string, tag) that respect common standards. It is designed to not need any additional meta-language, being designed in a metacircular fashion which is why the parse dialect used for definitions and transformations of REBOL dialects is also itself a dialect of REBOL. REBOL was used as a source of inspiration for JSON. === Gellish === Gellish English is a formalized subset of natural English (language), which includes a simple grammar and a large, extensible dictionary (taxonomy) that defines the general and domain specific terminology, whereas the concepts are arranged in a hierarchy, which supports inheritance of knowledge and requirements. The dictionary also includes standardized fact types. The terms and relation types together can be used to create and interpret expressions of facts, knowledge, requirements and other information. Gellish can be used in combination with SQL, RDF/XML, OWL and various other meta-languages. The Gellish standard is a combination of ISO 10303-221 (AP221) and ISO 15926. === List === The following describes and compares popular data exchange languages. Columns Schemas – Whether supports representing domain specific data structure definition Flexible – Whether supports extension of the semantic expression capabilities without modifying the schema Semantic verification – Whether supports semantic verification of the correctness of expressions in the language Dictionary – Whether includes a dictionary and a taxonomy (hierarchy) of concepts with inheritance Information model – Whether supports an information model Synonyms and homonyms – Whether supports the use of synonyms and homonyms in expressions Dialecting – Whether is available in multiple natural languages or dialects Web standard – Whether is standardized by a recognized body Transformations – Whether includes a translation to other standards Lightweight – Whether a lightweight version is available Human readable – Whether expressions are understandable without training Compatibility – Which other tools can be used or are required

Social trading

Social trading is a form of investing that allows investors to observe the trading behavior of their peers and expert traders. The primary objective is to follow their investment strategies using copy trading or mirror trading. Social trading requires little or no knowledge about financial markets. == History == One of the first social trading platforms was Collective2] which began offering a social trading functionality to retail traders as early as 2003 (preceding ZuluTrade by four years). In 2010, social trading started to achieve a greater degree of mainstream appeal with eToro, followed by Wikifolio in 2012. Europe-based NAGA, listed on Frankfurt Stock Exchange since 2017, claims more than EUR 27 billion was traded on its platform in the second half of 2019. Some of the other contemporary social trading platforms and tech providers are Trading Motion, Brokeree Solutions, iSystems, and FX Junction, among others. === Research === MIT Computer Scientist and researcher Yaniv Altshuler described social trading networks as complex adaptive systems, and in his 2014 research on eToro's OpenBook, wrote that "Having the inherent ability to share ideas and information between each others, OpenBook's users are given a new source of information they can use in order to enhance their trading performance. As the users are not playing against each other but rather – against the market, this situation becomes a non zero-sum game, hence incentivizing the users to share as much information as possible." His paper concludes that "social trading provides much better opportunities for profiting compared with individual trading," but that users make "excellent but sometimes not optimal decisions in selecting experts when they can see others' choices." A 2015 World Economic Forum report described social trading networks as disruptors, which "have emerged to provide low-cost, sophisticated alternatives to traditional wealth managers. These solutions cater to a broader customer base and empower customers to have more control of their wealth management," and "pose a tangible threat to the traditional practices of the wealth management industry". Economist Nouriel Roubini's thinktank predicted in 2016 that "newer forms of investment, such as socially responsible investments and social trading will bring some of the largest industry growth in the coming years." A 2017 St. John's University study found that 'leader' traders, or those with followers, are more susceptible to the disposition effect than investors that are not being followed by any other traders, with the authors suggesting the observation may be explained by "leaders feeling responsible towards their followers and an urge to not let them down, by fear of losing followers when admitting a bad investment decision and signaling confidence in their initial investment choice, or by an attempt of newly appointed leaders to manage their self-image." Social trading may potentially also change how much risk investors take. A recent experimental study argues that merely providing information on the success of others may lead to a significant increase in risk taking. This increase in risk taking may even be larger when subjects are provided with the option to directly copy others. == Characteristics == Social trading is an alternative way of analyzing financial data by looking at what other traders are doing and comparing and copying their techniques and strategies. Prior to the advent of social trading, investors and traders were relying on fundamental or technical analysis to form their investment decisions. Using social trading investors and traders could integrate into their investment decision-process social indicators from trading data-feeds of other traders. Social trading platforms or networks can be considered a subcategory of social networking services. Social trading allows traders to trade online with the help of others and some have claimed shortens the learning curve from novice to experienced trader. Traders can interact with others, watch others take trades, then duplicate their trades and learn what prompted the top performer to take a trade in the first place. By copying trades, traders can learn which strategies work and which do not work. Social trading is used to do speculation; in the moral context speculative practices are considered negatively and to be avoided by each individual. who conversely should maintain a long-term horizon avoiding any types of short term speculation. Social Media has permeated the trading world such that two main types of trading has evolved: Traditional Trades Single (or non-social) trade: Trader A places a normal trade by himself or herself; This can by manual or automated Social Trading There are two main types of social trading: Copy trade: Trader A places exactly the same trade as trader B's one single trade; (iii) Mirror trade: Trader A automatically executes trader B's every single trade, i.e., trader A follows exactly trader B's trading activities. Other variations offered on some platforms allow users to copy another trader's portfolio (copy portfolio), and follow a trader's dividends (copy dividends), where whenever a followed trader withdraws money from his or her account, a proportional amount of money will be withdrawn from the balance of their follower, in real time. === Key features === Information flow: Unencumbered access to information is important in financial markets and that makes the free exchange of information of interest to small scale as well as individual investors. Cooperative trading: Social trading offers traders the opportunity to work together in trading teams which can trade the markets collaboratively, whether by pooling funds, dividing research or through sharing information. Monetization: As with social networks in the broader sense, monetization strategies are not always clear. As with social networks in general, it is possible, however, that the long-term worth of such websites may come from the variety and depth of data about their users which their active communities are likely to generate. Transparency: Social trading platforms reveal traders' performance stats, open and past positions, and market sentiment, giving members complete information to assess the credibility of the contributors they follow on the platform.

G.9970

G.9970 (also known as G.hnta) is a Recommendation developed by ITU-T that describes the generic transport architecture for home networks and their interfaces to a provider's access network. G.9970 was developed by Study Group 15, Question 1. G.9970 received Consent on December 12, 2008 and was Approved on January 13, 2009. == Relationship with G.hn == G.9970 (G.hnta) and G.9960 (G.hn) are two ITU-T Recommendations that address home networking in a complementary manner. While G.9970 addresses layer 3 (network layer) of the home network architecture, G.9960 addresses layers 1 (physical layer) and 2 (data link layer).

ACL Data Collection Initiative

The ACL Data Collection Initiative (ACL/DCI) was a project established in 1989 by the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) to create and distribute large text and speech corpora for computational linguistics research. The initiative aimed to address the growing need for substantial text databases that could support research in areas such as natural language processing, speech recognition, and computational linguistics. By 1993, the initiative’s activities had effectively ceased, with its functions and datasets absorbed by the Linguistic Data Consortium (LDC), which was founded in 1992. == Objectives == The ACL/DCI had several key objectives: To acquire a large and diverse text corpus from various sources To transform the collected texts into a common format based on the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) To make the corpus available for scientific research at low cost with minimal restrictions To provide a common database that would allow researchers to replicate or extend published results To reduce duplication of effort among researchers in obtaining and preparing text data These objectives were designed to address the growing demand for very large amounts of text arising from applications in recognition and analysis of text and speech. Its core objective was to "oversee the acquisition and preparation of a large text corpus to be made available for scientific research at cost and without royalties". == History == By the late 1980s, researchers in computational linguistics and speech recognition faced a significant problem: the lack of large-scale, accessible text corpora for developing statistical models and testing algorithms. Existing generally available text databases were too small to meet the needs of developing applications in text and speech recognition. The initiative was formed to meet this need by collecting, standardizing, and distributing large quantities of text data with minimal restrictions for scientific research. As stated by Liberman (1990), "research workers have been severely hampered by the lack of appropriate materials, and specially by the lack of a large enough body of text on which published results can be replicated or extended by others." The ACL/DCI committee was established in February 1989. The committee included members from academic and industrial research laboratories in the United States and Europe. The initiative was chaired by Mark Liberman from the University of Pennsylvania (formerly of AT&T Bell Laboratories). Other committee members included representatives from organizations such as Bellcore, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Cambridge University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Northeastern University, University of Pennsylvania, SRI International, MCC, Xerox PARC, ISSCO, and University of Pisa. The project operated initially without dedicated funding, relying on volunteer efforts from committee members and their affiliated institutions. Key supporters included AT&T Bell Labs, Bellcore, IBM, Xerox, and the University of Pennsylvania, which allowed the use of their computing facilities for ACL/DCI-related work. Previously running on volunteer effort pro bono, in 1991, it obtained funding from General Electric and the National Science Foundation (IRI-9113530). == Data == As of 1990, the ACL/DCI had collected hundreds of millions of words of diverse text. The collection included: Wall Street Journal articles (25 to 50 million words); Canadian Hansard (parliamentary records) in parallel English and French versions: cleaned-up English Hansard donated by the IBM alignment models group (100 million words), and original Bilingual Hansard (from a different time period) obtained directly (200 million words). Collins English Dictionary (1979 edition), both as fulltext (3 million words) and as various "database" versions, constructed using "typographers' tape" donated by Collins, which were computer tapes containing the structured digital data used to typeset and print the 1979 edition of the dictionary; Emails from ARPANET newsletters for the ACM Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval Forum (IRLIST) and AIList Digest issues distributed over the ARPANET (AILIST) (5 million words), both collected by Edward A. Fox at VIPSU; Articles on networking (2 million words); U.S. Department of Agriculture Extension Service Fact Sheets (>1 million words); 200,000 scientific abstracts of about 1,500 words each from the Department of Energy (25 million words); Archives of the Challenger Investigation Commission, including transcripts of depositions and hearings (2.5 million words); Books from the Library of America, including works by Mark Twain, Eugene O'Neill, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Herman Melville, W.E.B. DuBois, Willa Cather, and Benjamin Franklin (130 books, 20 million words); Public domain books like the King James Bible, Tristram Shandy, The Federalist Papers; Several million words of transcribed radiologists' reports, donated by Francis Ganong at Kurzweil Applied Intelligence Inc (about 5 million words); The Child Language Data Exchange corpus of child language acquisition transcripts; U.S. Department of Justice Justice Retrieval and Inquiry System (JURIS) materials; The Swiss Civil Code in parallel German, French and Italian; Economic reports from the Union Bank of Switzerland, in parallel English, German, French and Italian; About 12K words of administrative policy manuals and 14K words of administrative memos, contributed by Geoff Pullum of U.C.S.C.; Material from various ACM journals and the ACL journal Computational Linguistics; The CSLI publications series: 50-100 reports (8K words each) and 5-10 books (80K words each). The initiative started with North American English text but expanded to include Canadian French and planned to include Japanese, Chinese, and other Asian languages. At least 5 million words from the collection were tagged under the Penn Treebank project, and those tags were distributed by DCI as well. After DCI was absorbed by the LDC, the datasets were curated under LDC. == Format == The ACL/DCI corpus was coded in a standard form based on SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language, ISO 8879), consistent with the recommendations of the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), of which the DCI was an affiliated project. The TEI was a joint project of the ACL, the Association for Computers and the Humanities, and the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, aiming to provide a common interchange format for literary and linguistic data. The initiative planned to add annotations reflecting consensually approved linguistic features like part of speech and various aspects of syntactic and semantic structure over time. == Examples == As an example of the use of ACL/DCI, consider the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) corpus for speech recognition research. The WSJ corpus was used as the basis for the DARPA Spoken Language System (SLS) community's Continuous Speech Recognition (CSR) Corpus. The WSJ corpus became a standard benchmark for evaluating speech recognition systems and has been used in numerous research papers. The WSJ CSR Corpus provided DARPA with its first general-purpose English, large vocabulary, natural language, high perplexity corpus containing speech (400 hours) and text (47 million words) during 1987–89. The text corpus was 313 MB in size. The text was preprocessed to remove ambiguity in the word sequence that a reader might choose, ensuring that the unread text used to train language models was representative of the spoken test material. The preprocessing included converting numbers into orthographics, expanding abbreviations, resolving apostrophes and quotation marks, and marking punctuation. As another example, the Yarowsky algorithm used bitext data from DCI to train a simple word-sense disambiguation model that was competitive with advanced models trained on smaller datasets. == Distribution == Materials from the ACL/DCI collection were distributed to research groups on a non-commercial basis. By 1990, about 25 research groups and individual researchers had received tapes containing various portions of the collected material. To obtain the data, researchers had to sign an agreement not to redistribute the data or make direct commercial use of it. However, commercial application of "analytical materials" derived from the text, such as statistical tables or grammar rules, was explicitly permitted. The initiative first distributed data via 12-inch reels of 9-track tape, then via CD-ROMs. Each such tape could contain 30 million words compressed via the Lempel-Ziv algorithms. The first CD-ROM distribution was in 1991, funded by Dragon Systems Inc. It contained Collins English Dictionary, WSJ, scientific abstracts provided by the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Penn Treebank.

Zero-knowledge service

Data exchange

Social trading

G.9970

ACL Data Collection Initiative

Data exchange

Related Articles