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
ViLegalExpert is a large-scale Vietnamese legal benchmark built from real citizen–lawyer consultations, comprising over 172,000 questions across 34 legal domains with professional answers and expert-verified evidence. It supports legal information retrieval, extractive QA, and abstractive QA. Experiments show that while pretrained language models perform well on QA, hybrid retrieval methods achieve the best evidence retrieval, highlighting significant challenges in grounding legal answers to authoritative sources.
By Dat Tien Nguyen, Nghia Hieu Nguyen, Anh Thi-Hoang Nguyen, Dung Ha Nguyen, Kiet Van Nguyen, Ngan Luu-Thuy Nguyen
Trustworthy Legal AI requires systems that can answer legal questions while grounding their responses in authoritative sources. However, existing Vietnamese legal benchmarks provide limited coverage o...
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
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.
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...
By Rilton Franzone, Valentin No\"el, Puyu Wang, Philip Torr, Fabio J. Fehr
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
arXiv:2608. 14210v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hallucination is a major challenge for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems in the legal domain, where ungrounded answers can lead to serious consequences.
By Souvick Das, Sallam Abualhaija, Domenico Bianculli
The paper presents a cross‑lingual legal QA system for Vietnamese labour law, introducing a bilingual evaluation suite of 231 Vietnamese–English question–answer pairs, 75 of which are annotated for five complex legal reasoning phenomena. It evaluates a verifier‑guided pipeline that decomposes answers into claims, checks citation reachability and entailment, and corrects citation failures and contradictions, and introduces six automatic diagnostics for faithfulness to retrieved evidence. Experiments show that dense retrieval outperforms sparse and hybrid retrieval, translation placement has no significant effect on diagnostics, and verifier‑guided correction modestly improves citation preservation but not other dimensions, with human evaluation indicating a gap between automatic diagnostics and human judgments.
By Nguyen Minh Chi, Mo El-Haj, Nguyen Ha Thanh, Dawn Knight, Paul Rayson
LexIssue introduces a benchmark for identifying disputed legal issues in Chinese civil litigation, comprising 430 real‑world cases and 1,303 expert‑annotated issues. The dataset is built around a hierarchical schema that links free‑form issue descriptions to structured legal categories, enabling two complementary tasks: issue generation and issue classification. A retrieval‑augmented knowledge base covering 27 causes of action and 441 issue entries is provided, and experiments show that incorporating this knowledge consistently improves model performance on the tasks.
By Huiyuan Xie, Yuqin Huang, Zhicheng Hao, Yida Cai, Shaochun Wang, Zhenghao Liu, Yuxiao Ye
arXiv:2608. 18752v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Statutory retrieval is necessary for citation-grounded legal question answering, but remains underexplored for Greek.
By Ernest Beta, Odysseas S. Chlapanis, Dimitrios Galanis, Ion Androutsopoulos
arXiv:2607. 03325v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present an automated pipeline that decomposes Italian tax-court judgments into individual legal issues and extracts, for each issue, a structured XML representation grounded in the IRAC framework and the legal syllogism.
By Giovanni Piccioli, Alessia Fidelangeli, Piera Santin, Pierpaolo Vivo