arXiv subjects

Volodymyr Ovcharov

Publications and source records attributed to Volodymyr Ovcharov.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Multi-Legal-Bench: When the Answer Is in the Input. Label Leakage in Legal Benchmarks Built from Court Registries

Court registries publish millions of decisions with structured metadata, which makes them an attractive source of labelled legal benchmarks: the court type, the form of the decision and its subject area come for free. We show that this convenience has a cost that registry-derived benchmarks rarely measure. We build Multi-Legal-Bench, which evaluates identical tasks on native court decisions from five national registries (France, the Netherlands, Poland, the Czech Republic and Lithuania), extending the Ukrainian UA-Legal-Bench, and audit what its cells actually measure. A keyword scan that uses no model reaches 96% on Dutch judgment-form classification against a 50% majority baseline, 84% on French court-type classification against 33%, and 66% on Polish judgment-form classification, where all nine models add at most seven points over it. Replacing the label names in the input by a mask brings the scan to the majority floor in all six affected cells, and eight of nine models lose accuracy significantly in most of them (39 of 54 model-cell pairs), by up to 48 points (Dutch judgment form: 100% to 52%); only Claude Sonnet 5 is essentially unaffected. Paired McNemar tests with Holm correction find a leader that beats every other model in only two of twelve cells, each a different model; but once the label names are masked, the same model leads both, and the spread between models widens in every masked cell. Part of the apparent parity between models is produced by the leakage itself. The audit also exposed a scoring defect in our own earlier release (answers written with diacritics were scored as wrong, understating Czech judgment-form accuracy by up to 90 points), which we correct and document. We recommend that every benchmark built from court registries report a no-model baseline and a masked control per cell. All data, prompts, predictions and scoring code are released.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Gated Against One Model, Open to the Next: Option-Only Solvability in Legal Multiple-Choice Benchmarks

Multiple-choice benchmarks are graded on whether a model picks the right option, not on whether it needed the question. Measuring that gap takes care: a model answering A to most items scores above chance wherever the key sits at A, and reads as recognition when it is not. We measure it on UA-JudgeExam: 11,990 four-option items with official keys, published by Ukraine's Higher Qualification Commission of Judges. Shown the options and no question, Claude Haiku 4.5 scores 0.383 against chance, and the leak is concentrated: 11.8% of items are answered blind on all eight option orders, against 0.2 items expected by chance. It is not quotation: search over 280,059 editions of Ukrainian legislation recovers 0.128. Gating those out retains 8,128 items, on which the gating model itself now scores 0.204, and GPT-5.6, which took no part in the selection, still answers 0.515 of them with the question hidden. Scoring twelve held-out models on the whole set and subtracting each one's answer-position habit, only two keep an excess: GPT-5.6 at +0.265, Sonnet 4.6 at +0.081. Without it the ranking misleads: Llama 3.1 8B scores 0.292 blind, above every model but those two, purely by answering A to 92% of items. The gate does select something real: on the items it rejected, eleven of twelve models score 0.518-0.789, every interval clear of what the same model scores on the items it kept. But that signal is one model's, and filtering on it does not transfer upward. Neither is visible on a 400-item sample, where nine models read as "statistically at chance". Rewriting distractors instead overshoots to 0.168, below chance and as exploitable. The same probe on LEXam returns chance: every option there points into the stem, none longer than 33 characters. Item format decides whether the problem can arise; capability decides how much is extracted. We release the corpus, the predictions and the harness.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Citation Grounding Measures the Oracle: Graph Coverage Determines Reported LLM Hallucination Rates in Law

Verifying LLM-generated legal citations against a graph of citations extracted from real court decisions is an appealing way to measure hallucination at scale: no annotators, no reference answers. We show that what such a metric reports is governed by the coverage of the graph it queries rather than by the model it evaluates, and that at the coverage where its verdicts become trustworthy it stops distinguishing models at all. We score 400 responses (100 Ukrainian legal queries x four commercial LLMs) against two snapshots of the same national citation graph, holding responses, extractor and metric fixed. Against a sparse snapshot (4.7e5 records) citation grounding ranges 0.791-0.855, apparently showing 15-21% of citations hallucinated. Against a dense snapshot of the same registry re-derived ten weeks later (3.3e8 records, 5.8e7 decisions) the identical responses score 0.989-0.999. Subsampling shows the cause is coverage: harvesting modelled as uniform record sampling, calibrated on nothing but the record count, reproduces the sparse scores to within 0.018 while knowing nothing about the models. Bootstrapping over the queries shows the other half, which no version of this work reported: no pair of systems is separable at 95% at any oracle size tested. The metric is caught between two failures. Sparse oracles discriminate, but what they discriminate is harvesting coverage; dense oracles are trustworthy and separate nothing. Densifying the graph, the obvious remedy for the first, produces the second. An independent legislation registry adjudicates: all 54 citations flagged by the sparse oracle name real articles, a 100% false-positive rate; of the four flagged by the dense oracle, two are fabrications, one a coverage gap, and one we cannot classify - it looks like a repealed provision, which is the argument in miniature.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

UA-Legal-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models on Ukrainian Legal Reasoning

Legal NLP benchmarks are overwhelmingly English-centric, leaving failure modes in morphologically rich, non-Latin-script languages undetected. We introduce UA-Legal-Bench, a five-task benchmark for evaluating large language models on Ukrainian legal reasoning, built from the Unified State Register of Court Decisions (EDRSR) -- one of the world's largest open judicial corpora (99.5 million decisions). The benchmark comprises: (1) case-type classification (4 classes, n=2,000), (2) judgment form classification (4 classes, n=2,000), (3) case-outcome prediction (6 classes, n=800), (4) legal norm extraction (n=1,794), and (5) cause category prediction (22 classes, n=1,871). We evaluate 11 LLMs (3B--675B) from five families under zero-shot and 3-shot prompting via AWS Bedrock with 158K API calls. Our results reveal sharply task-dependent few-shot effects: few-shot prompting improves judgment form classification by up to +38.6 pp but has mixed effects on outcome prediction. We show that accuracy is misleading on imbalanced legal tasks: the model with highest COP accuracy (62%) is a majority-class predictor (macro-F1: 23%), while the genuinely best model scores only 44% macro-F1. Within-family scaling analysis reveals that 8B models can match frontier performance on surface-level tasks but scaling thresholds vary dramatically across families. We release all data, prompts, and model predictions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Temporal Concept Drift in Legal Judgment Prediction: Neural Baselines Across Three Epochs of Ukrainian Court Decisions

Legal NLP benchmarks evaluate models on randomly split data, implicitly assuming that legal language is stationary. We test this assumption by fine-tuning four transformer encoders -- XLM-RoBERTa (base and large) and their legal-domain variants -- on Ukrainian court decisions from three temporal epochs defined by geopolitical disruptions: pre-war (2008-2013), hybrid war (2014-2021), and full-scale invasion (2022-2026). Each model is trained on one epoch and evaluated on all three, producing a 3x3 cross-temporal generalization matrix. Four findings emerge. (1) Forward degradation is severe: models trained on pre-war data lose up to 27.2 percentage points of macro-F1 when applied to full-scale invasion era decisions. (2) The degradation is asymmetric: backward transfer (full-scale to pre-war) is substantially more robust than forward transfer, consistent with the hypothesis that legal language is additive. (3) Legal-domain pretraining (Legal-XLM-R) does not improve absolute performance but reduces forward degradation magnitude and asymmetry. (4) Chronological continual learning eliminates catastrophic forgetting for general XLM-R: pre-war knowledge is fully retained (+1.8 to +6.2 pp) while full-scale performance gains +16.5 to +19.0 pp; reverse-chronological training causes severe forgetting. Cross-jurisdictional pretraining on Swiss Judgment Prediction data improves absolute performance but does not reduce temporal degradation magnitude, confirming that temporal drift is an intrinsic property of legal language evolution. The dataset (428K decisions across three epochs) is publicly available as a LEXTREME contribution.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Tokenizer Tax Across 25 European Languages: Domain Invariance, Cross-Lingual Few-Shot Effects, and the Ukrainian Penalty

Tokenizer fertility the number of tokens per word imposes a hidden cost on non-English NLP. We measure fertility for ten foundation models across 25 European languages on parallel text, producing the first controlled tokenizer tax map for the continent. The tax spans 2.5x from English (1.2 tokens/word) to Greek/Maltese (~3.1), following a clear hierarchy: Romance (1.5-1.7), Germanic (1.7-1.9), Slavic (2.2-2.5), Uralic/Baltic (2.7-3.0). Ukrainian (2.7) pays 15-18% more than cognate Slavic languages, reflecting underrepresentation in pre-training data. Fertility rankings are domain-invariant across three text registers (rho > 0.97). A subword analysis reveals that high-fertility tokenizers fragment morphological boundaries rather than preserving them. Cross-lingual few-shot evaluation on four Slavic languages shows that few-shot effects are model-intrinsic, not language-dependent. We release all measurements as a public dataset.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Few-Shot Degradation Is Not What It Seems: Behavioral Evidence, Representation Analysis, and a Random-Text Control Across 12 Models, 2 Tasks, and 2 Architectures

Few-shot prompting sometimes degrades language models instead of helping them, but why this happens is unknown. We evaluate 12 open-weight models on two Ukrainian tasks news classification and legal case outcome prediction and find that the effect is strongly task-dependent: the same models that gain +24 pp on news show only +3.4 pp on legal text, with two models degrading. To understand why, we look inside the models. Prior work measures how much hidden states shift between zero-shot and few-shot modes, but few-shot prompts are much longer, and that length difference alone moves representations. We propose a simple fix: replace demonstrations with length-matched random text to measure the shift caused by prompt length, then subtract it. The resulting metric content delta isolates how much the model's representations change because of what the demonstrations say, not how long they are. This changes the picture entirely: raw shift does not predict whether few-shot helps or hurts (r = 0.20), but content delta does (rho = +0.65, p = 0.043). Models that restructure representations more from demonstration content benefit more the opposite of the intuitive "distortion" explanation. Masking demonstrations in Llama 3.3 70B confirms the finding causally, recovering accuracy above the zero-shot baseline.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Tokenizer Fertility and Zero-Shot Performance of Foundation Models on Ukrainian Legal Text: A Comparative Study

Tokenizer fertility varies 1.6x across foundation models on Ukrainian legal text, yet this cost-critical dimension is absent from model selection practice. We benchmark seven models from five providers on 273 validated court decisions from Ukraine's state registry (EDRSR), measuring tokenizer fertility and zero-shot performance on three tasks. Four findings emerge. (1) Qwen 3 models consume 60% more tokens than Llama-family models on identical input, making tokenizer analysis a prerequisite for cost-efficient deployment. (2) NVIDIA Nemotron Super 3 (120B) achieves the highest composite score (83.1), outperforming Mistral Large 3 (5.6x more total parameters) at one-third the API cost model scale is a poor proxy for domain performance. (3) Few-shot prompting degrades performance by up to 26 percentage points; stratified and prompt-sensitivity ablations confirm this is intrinsic to Ukrainian-language demonstrations, not an artifact of example selection. (4) A cross-temporal generalization experiment reveals that classifiers trained on pre-war court ecisions (2008-2013) lose 27.9 percentage points when applied to full-scale invasion era decisions (2022-2026), with a pronounced forward-backward asymmetry: newer models transfer backward (+14.6 pp above forward transfer), but older models fail catastrophically on wartime legal language. For practitioners: tokenizer analysis should precede model selection, and zero-shot is a more reliable default than few-shot for morphologically rich languages. To support reproducibility and address the absence of Ukrainian from legal NLP benchmarks, we release a public dataset of 14,452 court decisions spanning 2008-2026, annotated with seven outcome labels across three temporal epochs that capture the impact of armed conflict on judicial proceedings.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Temporal Decay of Co-Citation Predictability: A 20-Year Statute Retrieval Benchmark from 396M Ukrainian Court Citations

Co-citation structure is widely assumed to provide stable retrieval signal in legal information systems. We test this assumption longitudinally by constructing UA-StatuteRetrieval, a benchmark that measures co-citation predictability across 20 annual snapshots (2007-2026) of 396 million codex citations from 101 million Ukrainian court decisions. Using a leave-one-out protocol over the full bipartite citation graph, we find that Adamic-Adar MRR declines 33% on a fixed set of articles (from 0.43 to 0.29) and 47% under a train/test temporal split (from 0.51 to 0.27) confirming genuine temporal decay rather than compositional shift or evaluation artifact. The decay is non-uniform: criminal procedure maintains stable co-citation patterns (MRR ~0.40), while civil law degrades from 0.35 to 0.15, coinciding with the 2017 judicial reform. Hub articles (>100K citations) resist decay, but mid-frequency articles (1K-10K) -- the practical retrieval frontier lose half their predictability. A BM25 text baseline decays even faster (31%), and embedding drift analysis with E5-large reveals a 4.3% semantic shift in how articles are cited, providing a mechanistic explanation for the observed decay. The benchmark is released at https://huggingface.co/datasets/overthelex/ua-statute-retrieval.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Automatic Construction of a Legal Citation Graph from 100 Million Ukrainian Court Decisions: Large-Scale Extraction, Topological Analysis, and Ontology-Driven Clustering

Half a billion citation edges extracted from 100.7 million Ukrainian court decisions reveal that judicial citation structure encodes legal domain boundaries without supervision and predicts future legislative importance with near-perfect accuracy. We construct the first large-scale citation graph from the complete EDRSR registry (99.5 million full texts, 1.1 TB), extracting 502 million citation links across six types via regex on commodity hardware in approximately 5 hours, with precision of 1.00 on a 200-decision validation sample (95% Wilson CI: [0.982, 1.000]). Three principal findings emerge. (1) The degree distribution follows a power law (alpha = 1.57 +/- 0.008), placing the Ukrainian court network near the EU Court of Justice and below the US Supreme Court, with hub articles cited by millions of decisions. (2) Louvain community detection on the co-citation projection recovers legal domain boundaries (civil, criminal, administrative, commercial) with modularity Q = 0.44-0.55 and temporal stability (NMI = 0.83-0.86 across periods), constituting an automatically constructed legal ontology grounded in judicial practice. (3) Citation features predict top-1000 articles with AUC = 0.9984, substantially outperforming a naive frequency baseline (P@1000 = 0.655); temporal dynamics detect legislative regime changes as phase transitions and the 2022 invasion as a citation entropy spike (H: 11.02 -> 13.49) with emergent wartime legislation nodes. The citation-derived ontology is operationalized as the domain layer of a workflow memory system for LLM-assisted legal analysis, connecting to the ontology-controlled paradigm. The extraction pipeline, analysis code, and aggregated statistics are released as open data.

cs.CL↗