arXiv:2606. 06679v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Court judgments are central to legal practice and jurisprudence, yet discourse analysis of Hong Kong judgments has received limited attention, owing largely to the absence of expert-annotated corpora.
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.
CLASE is a hybrid evaluation method for Chinese legal text that combines linguistic feature-based scores with experience-guided LLM-as-a-judge scores. It learns from contrastive pairs of authentic legal documents and their LLM-generated counterparts, enabling transparent, reference-free assessment of stylistic quality. Experiments on 200 Chinese legal documents show that CLASE aligns better with human judgments than traditional metrics and offers interpretable score breakdowns and improvement suggestions.
arXiv:2608. 08830v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Legal Statute Prediction (LSP) involves automatically identifying relevant legal statutes given factual descriptions in legal documents, typically framed as a multi-label classification task within natural language processing and information retrieval research.
arXiv:2603. 05171v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This Guideline presents a systematic and operationalizable annotation framework for representing legal argumentation structures in judicial decisions.
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.
arXiv:2606.09389v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to real-world legal tasks, evaluating the reliability of their open-ended legal responses...
arXiv:2608.22446v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Metaphors are figurative use of words for conceptual mapping. Metaphor detection in the legal context has been crucial as metaphors are persuasive juri...
The paper introduces an expert‑annotated dataset of 42 U.S. federal tax opinions on corporate reorganizations under I.R.C. §368, marking the first tree‑structured argument corpus in this domain. Each legal passage is labeled with one of five functional categories—Rule, Analysis, Conclusion, Background Facts, and Procedural History—and can be linked into directed support trees. Experiments demonstrate that functional labels are learnable and that supervised fine‑tuning improves within‑case retrieval, though cross‑case generalization remains weak.
arXiv:2607. 09094v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Legal precedent retrieval is a fundamental task in legal case preparation, planning, litigation strategy, and legal research.
Legal argument mining supports passage classification, retrieval, and argument completion. This work introduces an expert-annotated dataset of 42 U.S. federal tax opinions on corporate reorganizations...
The paper introduces Legal Rule Induction (LRI), a task that seeks to extract concise, generalizable doctrinal rules from analogous judicial precedents. It presents a reproducible pipeline for constructing LRI datasets and, using Chinese law, releases the first benchmark comprising 5,121 case sets (38,088 court cases) for training and 216 expert‑annotated gold test sets. Experiments show that state‑of‑the‑art large language models struggle with over‑generalization and hallucination, but training on the new dataset significantly improves their ability to capture nuanced rule patterns across similar cases.
The paper introduces an automated pipeline that converts court decisions into legal commentaries for specific German Civil Code sections, using paragraph extraction, summarization, keyword clustering, and large language models to generate headings and citation-rich sections. The system processes 4,555 decisions from the German Federal Court of Justice, evaluates the output on relevance, heading match, citation faithfulness, cluster distinction, and logical ordering, and demonstrates that rapid, low-cost commentary generation is feasible while noting limitations due to source restrictions and legal reasoning norms.