<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Leverage Knowledge Graph and Large Language Model for Law Article Recommendation: A Case Study of Chinese Criminal Law · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.04949/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.04949/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Leverage Knowledge Graph and Large Language Model for Law Article Recommendation: A Case Study of Chinese Criminal Law — mentioned by btown</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42441908</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2410.04949:42441908</guid><pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2024 15:05:16 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Law does have subroutines like this... but they&amp;#x27;re implicit via &amp;quot;as used in this section, X is defined as&amp;quot; clauses that may be pages away or defined decades prior, as well as de facto definitions scattered through centuries of case law. New legislation can&amp;#x27;t simplify things unless the entire graph of implicit definitions is considered. All this was inscrutable before LLMs, but LLMs bring their own challenges: to summarize something in plain text, is it using a deep graph of definitions that are sourced and verifiable, or hallucinating their existence? IMO architectures as in…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.04949/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.IR</category></item></channel></rss>
