Cited by 19Authorship Attribution and ProfilingFractal and DNA sequence analysisLegal Language and Interpretation

Complexity and Entropy in Legal Language

Open access
Friedrich, Roland·2021·Frontiers in Physics

Abstract

We study the language of legal codes from different countries and legal traditions, using concepts from physics, algorithmic complexity theory and information theory. We show that vocabulary entropy, which measures the diversity of the author’s choice of words, in combination with the compression factor, which is derived from a lossless compression algorithm and measures the redundancy present in a text, is well suited for separating different writing styles in different languages, in particular also legal language. We show that different types of (legal) text, e.g. acts, regulations or literature, are located in distinct regions of the complexity-entropy plane, spanned by the information and complexity measure. This two-dimensional approach already gives new insights into the drafting style and structure of statutory texts and complements other methods.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fphy.2021.671882

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Legal language is notoriously complex.

    “Legal language is notoriously complex [3–5]”

    From GPT-4 passes the bar exam (2024) · cites this paper as [3]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kelsen H. Reine Rechtslehre: Mit einem Anhang: Das Problem der Gerechtigkeit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck (2017). doi:10.33196/9783704683991 · DOI
  2. Koehn P. Conference Proceedings: The Tenth Machine Translation Summit. AAMT. Phuket, Thailand: AAMT (2005). p. 79-86. Europarl: A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Friedrich, R.
Affiliations
ETH Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Friedrich, Roland
Venue
Frontiers in Physics
Published
2021-06-04
Volume
9
ISSN
2296-424X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3168273140
Cited by
19
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection (cc-by)
Funders
  • Harvard University
  • Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
  • Max-Planck-Institut für Physik Komplexer Systeme
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fractal and DNA sequence analysis
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal Language and Interpretation
Keywords
legal language, legal codes, algorithmic complexity, lossless compression, statutory text, legal tradition, information theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review