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