In the TREC Total Recall Track (2015-2016), participating teams could employ either fully automatic or human-assisted (“semi-automatic”) methods to select documents for relevance assessment by a simulated human reviewer. According to the TREC 2016 evaluation, the fully automatic baseline method achieved a recall-precision breakeven (“R-precision”) score of 0.71, while the two semi-automatic efforts achieved scores of 0.67 and 0.51. In this work, we investigate the extent to which the observed effectiveness of the different methods may be confounded by chance, by inconsistent adherence to the Track guidelines, by selection bias in the evaluation method, or by discordant relevance assessments. We find no evidence that any of these factors could yield relative effectiveness scores inconsistent with the official TREC 2016 ranking.Read the Paper
Interested in hearing more from Zuva?
Read more papers
Dancing with the AI Devil: Investigating the Partnership Between Lawyers and AI
As professional users interact with more AI-enabled tools, it has become increasingly important to understand how their work and behaviour are affected by such tools. In this paper, we present the insights that we have gleaned from a qualitative user study conducted with nine of our software’s users who are all legal professionals. We find that as our participants become more accustomed to the system they begin to subtly alter their behaviours and interactions with the system.
A Reliable and Accurate Multiple Choice Question Answering System for Due Diligence
The problem of answering multiple choice questions, based on the content of documents has been studied extensively in the machine learning literature. We pose the due diligence problem, where lawyers study legal contracts and assess the risk in potential mergers and acquisitions, as a multiple choice question answering problem, based on the text of the contract. Existing frameworks for question answering are not suitable for this task, due to the inherent scarcity and imbalance in the legal contract data available for training.