arXiv:2606. 09724v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become a standard architectural response to unreliability in legal AI, yet high-profile failures, including fabricated citations submitted to courts and anachronistic legal content presented as current, continue to appear across jurisdictions.
arXiv:2608. 04011v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This article examines the enduring epistemic and methodological crisis of traditional legal practice in light of the opportunities and constraints introduced by artificial intelligence.
The paper argues that hallucinations by legal language models should be judged as failures of legal warrant rather than mere factual or citation errors. It defines claim-authority warrant as a context-sensitive relationship between a legal claim and applicable, current authority, and proposes that evaluating warrant can uncover failures missed by traditional accuracy or citation metrics. The authors outline a pilot study, benchmark specifications, and a research agenda to assess whether legal AI systems’ claims are properly licensed by law.
arXiv:2506. 07853v5 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Representing the temporal evolution of legal norms is a critical challenge for automated processing.
arXiv:2608.21409v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In medicine, claims remain valid when supported by empirical evidence grounded in stable biological reality. In law, by contrast, truth is contingent...
arXiv:2608. 09393v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We identify and quantify temporal misgrounding: the systematic retrieval and citation of the currently in-force version of a legal article when the applicable version is an earlier or future one.
arXiv:2607. 03325v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present an automated pipeline that decomposes Italian tax-court judgments into individual legal issues and extracts, for each issue, a structured XML representation grounded in the IRAC framework and the legal syllogism.
arXiv:2605. 21071v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The rapid progress of large language models (LLMs) is shifting semantic search toward a question-answering paradigm, where users ask questions and LLMs generate responses.
arXiv:2606. 15646v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed natural language processing, but their lack of interpretable reasoning and tendency to hallucinate pose significant challenges for legal applications.
Legal Research Bench (LRB) is a new benchmark comprising 413 open-ended U.S. legal research questions, each paired with a gold answer, supporting authorities, and a binary grading rubric. The study evaluates thirteen advanced language‑model agents using web search, case‑law search, page parsing, and retrieval tools, scoring responses only when all required criteria are met and cited authorities verify. Results show that even the best model, Claude Opus 4.8, achieves full correctness on only 42.9% of questions, with performance varying by legal area and task complexity, and no clear link between more tool calls or inference cost and higher accuracy.
arXiv:2608. 20220v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Legal AI systems are increasingly used to answer legal questions, yet existing benchmarks assume queries arrive fully specified.
The paper introduces a systematic method for comparing different formalizations of the same legal provision by analyzing their inferences on individual cases. It matches formalizations at the node level, derives shared interfaces, and uses a SAT solver to identify edge cases where any two formalizations disagree. The authors apply this approach to ten EU provisions formalized by nine advanced LLMs, finding that behavioral divergence is largely uncorrelated with structural agreement and that the resulting edge cases expose distinct types of disagreement, some reflecting real legal controversies.
arXiv:2608. 02699v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When algorithms make or influence consequential decisions---about loan eligibility, hiring, or healthcare---EU law grants affected individuals a Right to Explanation.