arXiv:2606. 09724v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become a standard architectural response to unreliability in legal AI, yet high-profile failures, including fabricated citations submitted to courts and anachronistic legal content presented as current, continue to appear across jurisdictions.
By Hudson de Martim
arXiv:2606. 15646v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed natural language processing, but their lack of interpretable reasoning and tendency to hallucinate pose significant challenges for legal applications.
By Deepa Tilwani, Yash Saxena, Ankur Padia, Srinivasan Parthasarathy, Manas Gaur
arXiv:2506. 07853v5 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Representing the temporal evolution of legal norms is a critical challenge for automated processing.
By Hudson de Martim
arXiv:2603. 05171v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This Guideline presents a systematic and operationalizable annotation framework for representing legal argumentation structures in judicial decisions.
By Kun Chen, Xianglei Liao, Kaixue Fei, Yi Xing, Xinrui Li
arXiv:2606. 23913v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This article develops an architecture that creates a formally verifiable reward signal to train legal AI, adapting the LLM proposes, verifier disposes paradigm from mathematical AI to the distinctive demands of law.
By Armin Heydari (Harvard University), Torben Leowald (Columbia University)
arXiv:2607. 23888v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In the United States, artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly deployed amid limited federal regulation.
By Julie Yu, Rock Yuren Pang, Jevan Hutson, Katharina Reinecke