arXiv AI

Do Small Models Use the Law You Give Them? Context-Injected Fine-Tuning for Legal QA in Bangladesh

arXiv:2607. 23446v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A small language model can receive the governing statutory provision and still answer incorrectly.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1

Do Small Models Use the Law You Give Them? Measuring Context Use on a Bilingual Bangladesh Legal Benchmark

The paper investigates whether fine‑tuning improves how language models use supplied Bangladeshi legal text in bilingual question‑answering. Using a hierarchy‑preserving statutory corpus, 2,165 fine‑tuning examples, and a 150‑item control set, the authors evaluate six instruction‑tuned models with multiple LoRA seeds, separating scoring, retrieval, and model effects. Results show that while fine‑tuning can boost overall accuracy, it does not increase the models’ reliance on the governing provision, highlighting the need to disentangle scorer, retriever, and model contributions in legal adaptation studies.

By Moniruzzaman Mahadi, Abrar Mohammed Tanzim Alam, Sayma Siddika Monalisa, Mir Mohammad Asif Abdullah, Swakkhar Shatabda, Md Adnan Arefeen
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 22

Efficient LLM Distillation for Bangladesh Legal Context: A Smartphone-Compatible Retrieval-Augmented Generation Model

The paper presents a smartphone‑compatible, retrieval‑augmented language model tailored to Bangladeshi statutory law. By distilling a 9‑billion‑parameter Gemma‑2 teacher into a 2‑billion‑parameter student using supervised fine‑tuning and QLoRA, the authors achieve significant gains in ROUGE‑L and BERTScore on an English benchmark while keeping the model lightweight (1.6 GB) and operable offline on a Pixel 6. The system retrieves from 36,029 statutory passages using a hybrid dense/BM25 approach, and cross‑lingual evaluation shows effective Bangla query handling against an English‑only corpus, with a practicing lawyer rating the responses highly in a pilot study.

By MD. Nafis Kamal, Mahadi Hasan Fahim, Talha Ridwan, Nadifa Zaman, Fariha Roushon Florin, Farig Yousuf Sadeque, Saadat Rafid Ahmed
arXiv AI
Jun 18

TW-LegalBench: Measuring Taiwanese Legal Understanding

arXiv:2606. 18699v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities across diverse tasks, yet their performance on jurisdiction-specific legal reasoning remains underexplored.

By Fei-Yueh Chen, Chun Huang Lin, Chan Wei Hsu, Kuan Hsuan Yeh, Zih-Ching Chen, Kuan-Ming Chen, Patrick Chung-Chia Huang
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 4

KhatianDoc: A Human-Verified Benchmark Diagnosing Multimodal LLM Failure on Bengali Legal Land Records

KhatianDoc is a new benchmark that tests multimodal large language models on Bengali legal land records, specifically the handwritten RS Khatians used in Bangladesh. The benchmark comprises four tasks—symbol recognition, base‑16 to decimal conversion, structured field extraction, and legal document question answering—drawn from 107 real records and 1,634 QA pairs. Six multimodal LLMs were evaluated under a zero‑shot protocol, revealing that many models fail to answer a significant portion of questions correctly and perform poorly on arithmetic conversion, highlighting a lack of capability rather than a performance gap.

By Tasmiad Hasan, Arafat Zaman Ratul, Sarker Sadman Saalim, S. M. Shah Nawaz Hossain, Khan Raiyan Ibne Reza, Sumaiya Tabassum Nimi
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 15

Lost in Translation: Why Lower Bias Scores Don't Mean Fairer Models

The paper investigates whether lower stereotype bias scores in multilingual language models truly indicate greater fairness. By auditing ten open models across eight languages, the authors show that lower average scores often arise from translation artifacts rather than genuine bias reduction, as item‑level correlations between English and translated scores are weak. They also identify pipeline errors that can mask bias signals and provide code to replicate their findings.

By Harsh Kumar
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 24

Cross-Lingual Legal QA for Vietnamese Labour Law: Retrieval, Translation, and Verifier-Guided Correction

The paper presents a cross‑lingual legal QA system for Vietnamese labour law, introducing a bilingual evaluation suite of 231 Vietnamese–English question–answer pairs, 75 of which are annotated for five complex legal reasoning phenomena. It evaluates a verifier‑guided pipeline that decomposes answers into claims, checks citation reachability and entailment, and corrects citation failures and contradictions, and introduces six automatic diagnostics for faithfulness to retrieved evidence. Experiments show that dense retrieval outperforms sparse and hybrid retrieval, translation placement has no significant effect on diagnostics, and verifier‑guided correction modestly improves citation preservation but not other dimensions, with human evaluation indicating a gap between automatic diagnostics and human judgments.

By Nguyen Minh Chi, Mo El-Haj, Nguyen Ha Thanh, Dawn Knight, Paul Rayson