The paper introduces a multi‑task pre‑training strategy for German traffic law that integrates Knowledge Graph (KG) information through Next Sentence Prediction, KG‑Guided Clustering, and KG‑Aware Paragraph Classification. By embedding structured legal knowledge into Transformer weights, the model can perform zero‑shot legal reasoning without explicit graph traversal. Experiments on nine encoders and 324 runs show substantial gains—up to 155% over baselines on synthetic StVO QA and improved performance on four of seven LexGLUE benchmarks, with consistent zero‑shot transfer to Austrian driving regulations.
arXiv:2607. 19181v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Neural machine translation (NMT) in the legal domain is a linguistically and conceptually demanding task, primarily due to the complexity of legal language and the high level of precision it requires.
arXiv:2605. 29738v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Legal NLP benchmarks overwhelmingly evaluate a single language or aggregate tasks that differ fundamentally across jurisdictions, making cross-lingual comparison impossible.
The paper introduces Juris Policy Optimization (JPO), a post‑training framework designed to enhance structured legal reasoning in Chinese criminal judgment prediction. JPO first trains models with teacher‑generated rationales to guide a four‑step reasoning process, then applies reinforcement learning using a composite reward that balances prediction accuracy, reasoning completeness, and cross‑step consistency. Experiments on several open‑source language models and three Chinese legal benchmarks demonstrate that JPO consistently outperforms both supervised fine‑tuning and standard reinforcement learning baselines in terms of judgment prediction and reasoning quality.
LEGO is a dual‑module framework that combines a Legal Expert GraphRAG system with an expert Chain‑of‑Thought approach to enhance complex legal reasoning. The GraphRAG component uses an expert‑annotated civil code graph and a greedy normative‑coverage retrieval algorithm to extract relevant provision subgraphs, while the Chain‑of‑Thought module structures retrieved provisions and case facts into a Provision‑Fact‑Conclusion reasoning flow. Using a Qwen3‑8B backbone, LEGO achieves 40.53% exact‑match accuracy on LawExamQA_Civil, surpassing baseline RAG and CoT models and matching larger models on multi‑hop and open‑ended benchmarks, with ablation studies confirming the complementary benefits of both modules.
arXiv:2608. 14610v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Legal reasoning tasks such as legal judgment prediction (LJP) require identifying the temporally correct version of the law governing a case -- a capability we term temporal applicable-law determination.
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. 19710v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Court proceedings contain valuable evidence about human smuggling networks, but this information is often buried within unstructured, jargon-heavy legal documents.
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) internally encode legal knowledge, specifically the 26 CATO factors used in case-based legal reasoning. Experiments on three open models (Qwen3-1.7B, Qwen3-8B, Gemma-2 2B) demonstrate that all factors are linearly decodable and can be localized to single-layer readouts, with high test AUCs (0.86–1.00). The study identifies 78 model‑specific layer‑feature coordinates, linking symbolic legal abstractions (HYPO and CATO) to learned internal representations in LLMs.
arXiv:2606. 23716v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Legal AI benchmark research frequently invokes the assumption that large language models can improve access to justice, including for people who cannot access lawyers in order to understand and exercise their legal rights.
arXiv:2605.25920v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: While large language models (LLMs) augmented with agentic search capabilities show promise for legal reasoning, they overlook a fundamental constra...
arXiv:2607. 09094v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Legal precedent retrieval is a fundamental task in legal case preparation, planning, litigation strategy, and legal research.
The paper surveys how large language models (LLMs) are being applied in legal tasks such as judgement prediction, document analysis, and drafting. It reviews the benefits of automation while highlighting legal challenges like privacy, bias, and explainability. The authors also discuss data resources for legal domain specialization and outline future research directions.