arXiv:2608. 02621v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Legal benchmarks typically score final answers even when models also state legal authority.
arXiv:2609.10293v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In high-stakes domains such as legal practice, a language-model answer is only useful to the extent that a reader can verify each claim against the sou...
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:2509. 00761v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed for legal question answering, where evaluations typically focus on multiple-choice accuracy.
LabourCrew is a multi‑agent Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG) framework designed for trustworthy statutory question answering in labour law. It introduces three grounding mechanisms: StatuteGraph, an evidence‑exchange ledger, and a calibrated trust gate that controls false‑accept rates. Evaluated on a Bangla Labour Act QA set, LabourCrew achieves a false‑accept rate of 0.081 and higher answer relevancy than existing RAG methods, demonstrating that calibrated abstention is key to auditable legal QA.
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.
arXiv:2609.23726v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models have shown strong performance across a range of legal tasks, but existing benchmarks rarely evaluate the ability to take and defe...
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.
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:2607. 05031v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to produce test oracles, the part of a test that decides whether observed behavior is correct.
arXiv:2608. 09393v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We identify and quantify temporal misgrounding: the systematic retrieval and citation of the currently in-force version of a legal article when the applicable version is an earlier or future one.
arXiv:2609.15830v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can improve access to complex information; however, retrieving evidence alone does not ensure that answers are g...
arXiv:2604. 06173v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Legal QA benchmarks have predominantly focused on case law, overlooking the unique challenges of statute-centric regulatory reasoning.