arXiv:2607. 01256v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Overwhelmed courts in the United States review millions of default judgments each year.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
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.
arXiv:2605. 25240v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Two methodologies dominate current practices of benchmarking: rubric-based scoring evaluates items against predefined criteria, whereas comparative judgment elicits pairwise preferences between outputs.
arXiv:2605. 28183v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We introduce the BenGER (Benchmark for German Law) dataset for evaluating LLM systems on subsumption-based legal reasoning in German law.
arXiv:2606. 22737v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Before letting an agent operate over real context, can you prove it used the right evidence?
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.
arXiv:2608. 10400v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: What if judges already behave like algorithms?