Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the impact of temporal leakage in citation-context retrieval for legal precedents, revealing how unfenced methods can overestimate their effectiveness by incorporating future evidence not available at query time. By employing a temporal-admission decomposition, the authors quantify the extent of genuine future-citation leakage versus legitimate pre-query admissions across two jurisdictions, CLERC and ECtHR-PCR. The findings indicate that only 14.9% of the naive gain on ECtHR-PCR is genuine future evidence, while a zero-training anchor channel significantly enhances retrieval performance on CLERC, achieving competitive results without prior training.
Only 14.9% of citation-context retrieval gains are based on genuine future evidence, revealing a critical flaw in current evaluation methods.
Incoming citation context-the text with which later cases describe a case when citing it-is a strong signal for legal precedent retrieval, but it is evaluated without a temporal fence: at query time the target precedent has not yet been cited by future cases, so an unfenced method credits itself with evidence unavailable at deployment. Our central contribution is to measure how much: a temporal-admission decomposition that splits the naive relax-the-fence gain into genuine future-citation leakage, legitimate pre-query admission, and an index effect, reporting the phantom fraction-the share that is future evidence. We instantiate this as a controlled deployability audit of incoming-citation retrieval across two jurisdictions, CLERC (US federal, 1.84M documents) and ECtHR-PCR (European Court of Human Rights), adding a zero-training anchor channel that admits only citers dated before the query. On ECtHR-PCR only 14.9% of the naive gain is genuine future evidence; on CLERC the over-credit grows to +4.95 R@1000 as the fence is relaxed. Under the fence, the zero-training channel gains +16.1 R@1000 over BM25 on CLERC, clears a citation-degree control, and reaches a published R@1000 estimate similar to the strongest trained system on ECtHR-PCR (79.56 vs 79.39) at zero training.
