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.
By Wei Fan, Tianshi Zheng, Yiran Hu, Zheye Deng, Weiqi Wang, Baixuan Xu, Chunyang Li, Haoran Li, Weixing Shen, Yangqiu Song
arXiv:2505. 02763v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: One of the central promises of legal AI is to automate drudgery -- the formal, repetitive tasks of lawyers' work that consume time without calling for much discretion.
By Matthew Dahl, Eric Mart\'inez
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...
By Wei Fan, Yining Zhou, Mufan Zhang, Yanbing Weng, Yiran HU, Tianshi Zheng, Baixuan Xu, Chunyang Li, Jianhui Yang, Haoran Li, Yangqiu Song
CoAL‑RAG is a complexity‑aware legal retrieval‑augmented generation method that adapts its retrieval strategy based on a multi‑dimensional evaluation of question essence and retrieval consistency. It quantifies reasoning demand from the logical structure of a question and uses the discrepancy between semantic and keyword retrieval to gauge problem complexity, thereby selecting the most suitable retrieval approach and filtering context dynamically. Experiments show that CoAL‑RAG outperforms baseline models on Chinese legal benchmarks (SocialLawQA, LawBench) with a 42.5% BLEU improvement and 3.6× ROUGE‑L, while also achieving strong cross‑jurisdictional performance on English datasets (LexGLUE, CaseHold).
By Jin Su, Zhuofeng Zhao, Huanhuan Wang, Hao Chen
Statute retrieval is a fundamental task in legal information retrieval, yet existing approaches struggle to bridge the gap between colloquial legal queries and formal statutory language. In this paper, we propose GCSR, a generative statute retrieval framework that reformulates statute retrieval as a sequence generation problem and internalizes statutory knowledge into a generative model.
arXiv:2607. 18825v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This comprehensive study introduces an advanced Artificial Intelligence for Indian Legal Question Answering (AILQA) system tailored to the Indian legal context.
By Shubham Kumar Nigam, Shubham Kumar Mishra, Noel Shallum, Kripabandhu Ghosh, Arnab Bhattacharya
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.
By Samuel J. Vincent, Daniel Calloway, Fangyi Yu, Andrew M. Bean, Nabeel Seedat
This comprehensive study introduces an advanced Artificial Intelligence for Indian Legal Question Answering (AILQA) system tailored to the Indian legal context. AILQA leverages a variety of embedding and generative models, including recent Large Language Models (LLMs), to address the unique challenges posed by the intricate and diverse nature of Indian legal texts and to enhance the accuracy and reliability of responses to legal questions.
The paper presents a retrieval‑augmented generation pipeline for answering regulatory compliance questions in finance. It builds a three‑stage retriever on LegalBERT and a compact 2B–12B generator served with 4‑bit quantization, achieving a Recall@10 of 0.774 on the ObliQA benchmark and improving answer quality via RAFT‑LoRA fine‑tuning. However, the adapted models fail to transfer to Australian case‑law questions, and a closed‑book model performs almost as well while lacking verifiable grounding.
By Tobias Deu{\ss}er, Abhishek Pillai, Aurelio F. Bariviera, Dhananjay Bhardwaj, Lorenz Sparrenberg, David Berghaus, Christian Bauckhage, Rafet Sifa
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.
By Souvick Das, Sallam Abualhaija, Domenico Bianculli
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.
By Katrina Drozdov, Oliver Chen, Langston Nashold, Rayan Krishnan
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.
By Zhongxiang Sun