Hugging Face Trending Papers

Parthenon Law: A Self-Evolving Legal-Agent Framework

Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →

As agents grow more capable, legal-domain LLM agents promise to turn document-heavy matters into reviewable work products -- yet reliable deployment faces three obstacles: no large-scale evidence on how today's strongest model-and-harness combinations behave on end-to-end legal matters; no agent architecture adapted to the legal vertical, only general-purpose harnesses; and, in a setting that keeps shifting with new facts, authorities, and deadlines, no mechanism for systems to learn from their own outcomes. We address each.

Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at Hugging Face Trending Papers.

arXiv AI
Jun 4

Parthenon Law: A Self-Evolving Legal-Agent Framework

arXiv:2606. 04602v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As agents grow more capable, legal-domain LLM agents promise to turn document-heavy matters into reviewable work products -- yet reliable deployment faces three obstacles: no large-scale evidence on how today's strongest model-and-harness combinations behave on end-to-end legal matters; no agent architecture adapted to the legal vertical, only general-purpose harnesses; and, in a setting that keeps shifting with new facts, authorities, and deadlines, no mechanism for systems to learn from their own outcomes.

By Hejia Geng, Leo Liu
arXiv AI
Jun 17

LegalHalluLens: Typed Hallucination Auditing and Calibrated Multi-Agent Debate for Trustworthy Legal AI

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.

By Lalit Yadav, Akshaj Gurugubelli
arXiv AI
1d ago

When Do LLMs Apply the Wrong Law? Diagnosing LLM Failures in Temporal Legal Reasoning

arXiv:2608. 14610v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Legal reasoning tasks such as legal judgment prediction (LJP) require identifying the temporally correct version of the law governing a case -- a capability we term temporal applicable-law determination.

By Yiqian Huang, Shuyuan Zheng, Qianying Liu, Shaowen Peng, Yuntao Kong, Kotaro Funakoshi, Chuan Xiao, Manabu Okumura, Yang Cao