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.
arXiv:2609.22529v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: International law provides the normative framework through which states coordinate action, regulate armed conflict, and protect human rights, yet its t...
arXiv:2609.14739v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used in high-stakes domains such as law, where systems must ground their reasoning in retrieved evidence and a...
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: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: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.
arXiv:2606. 31718v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Relation extraction (RE) for low-resource languages is typically constrained by the lack of annotated corpora.
arXiv:2607. 04261v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is constrained by its reliance on post-hoc judicial materials, increasing the likelihood that models perform retrospective classification rather than true forecasting.
arXiv:2606. 23375v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While the wider applicability of LLMs in the legal field is currently debated due to their reliability and the gravity of any errors, narrow uses with well-understood and mitigated risks have emerged.
Legal outcome prediction must disentangle objective case facts from adjudicative context. Merit-based rulings rely on factual evidence while technical disposals may hinge on judicial discretion.
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.
The paper evaluates legal text classification models for Korean sexual offense cases, comparing traditional machine learning, large language models, and fine‑tuned domain models. Fine‑tuned KLUE‑BERT achieved the highest accuracy of 99.3%, outperforming GPT‑3.5, GPT‑4.0, and other traditional approaches. Explainable AI techniques were used to analyze predictions, revealing linguistic features that influence decisions and highlighting limitations in capturing subtle textual cues, especially in real‑world KICS data.
arXiv:2609.16010v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The complexity of legal language and limited accessibility to legal information pose significant challenges to justice delivery in Nepal. Traditional l...