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...
The paper argues that hallucinations by legal language models should be judged as failures of legal warrant rather than mere factual or citation errors. It defines claim-authority warrant as a context-sensitive relationship between a legal claim and applicable, current authority, and proposes that evaluating warrant can uncover failures missed by traditional accuracy or citation metrics. The authors outline a pilot study, benchmark specifications, and a research agenda to assess whether legal AI systems’ claims are properly licensed by law.
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:2608.28593v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: With the increasing development of AI regulatory frameworks, ensuring that artificial intelligence systems, particularly generative models, operate in...
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.
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.
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. 15646v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed natural language processing, but their lack of interpretable reasoning and tendency to hallucinate pose significant challenges for legal applications.
arXiv:2606. 18021v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI systems deployed in legal workflows hallucinate at rates that aggregate metrics report at ~52%, but this average conceals where errors concentrate and in which direction they run, leaving compliance officers without an actionable signal for trustworthy deployment.
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:2507. 21134v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-risk domains such as law, finance, and medicine, systematically evaluating their domain-specific safety and compliance becomes critical.
arXiv:2609.36707v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Legal contracts contain ambiguities that expose enterprises to financial and legal risks. Some ambiguities allow flexible interpretation without trigge...