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.
By Volodymyr Ovcharov
arXiv:2607. 29066v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deception detection has critical implications for legal proceedings, law enforcement, and online security.
By Theekshana Samaradiwakara, Nisansa de Silva, George C. Lobb
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.
By Andrew Lou, David Shin
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.
By Subinay Adhikary, Upal Bhattacharya, Vivek Kumar Singh, Anurag Sharma, Shubham Kumar Nigam, Suvasis Das, Shouvik Kumar Guha, Koustav Rudra, Kripabandhu Ghosh
arXiv:2012. 02110v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Pre-trained language models have significantly advanced natural language processing (NLP), especially with the introduction of BERT and its optimized version, RoBERTa.
By Raphael Scheible, Johann Frei, Fabian Thomczyk, Henry He, Patric Tippmann, Jochen Knaus, Victor Jaravine, Frank Kramer, Martin Boeker
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
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:2606. 00116v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This study introduces a novel architecture of KAN-based BiGRU model for the task of classification and summarization of legal documents in a low-resource multilingual setup.
By Ahmed Faizul Haque Dhrubo, Souvik Pramanik, Most. Aysha Siddika Sumona, Shahnewaz Siddique, Mohammad Ashrafuzzaman Khan, Mohammad Abdul Qayum, Mohsin Sajjad
arXiv:2506. 15138v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Tokenization directly affects the inference efficiency of large language models, since fragmented tokenization increases sequence length and generation cost.
By Gyeongje Cho, Yeonkyoung So, Sangmin Lee, Jaejin Lee
arXiv:2606. 07996v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Pretraining is fundamental to the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet the opacity of pretraining data complicates model analysis and raises ethical, legal, and fairness concerns.
By Kaixin Lan, Mu You, Tao Fang, Binkai Ou, Lidia S. Chao, Derek F. Wong
arXiv:2606. 07523v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Legal domains in high-resource languages like English have widely adopted artificial intelligence for legal question answering.
By Samir Wagle, Abiral Adhikari, Reewaj Khanal, Batsal Bhandari, Prashant Manandhar, Praveen Acharya, Bal Krishna Bal
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