CoAL-RAG: A Complexity-Aware Legal Retrieval-Augmented Generation Method

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising technology for legal document consultation, yet its application in Chinese legal scenarios faces two key limitations: existing benchmarks lack specialized support for joint retriever-generator evaluation, and mainstream RAG systems often fail to accommodate the structured nature of legal provisions. To address these gaps, this study advances two core contributions: First, we constructed the Legal-DC benchmark dataset, comprising 480 legal documents (covering areas such as market regulation and contract management) and 2,475 refined question-answer pairs, each annotated with clause-level references, filling the gap for specialized evaluation resources in Chinese legal RAG. Second, we propose the LegRAG framework, which integrates legal adaptive indexing (clause-boundary segmentation) with a dual-path self-reflection mechanism to ensure clause integrity while enhancing answer accuracy. Third, we introduce automated evaluation methods for large language models to meet the high-reliability demands of legal retrieval scenarios. LegRAG outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods by 1.3% to 5.6% across key evaluation metrics. This research provides a specialized benchmark, practical framework, and empirical insights to advance the development of Chinese legal RAG systems. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/legal-dc/Legal-DC.

We introduce Legal RAG Bench, a benchmark and evaluation methodology for assessing the end-to-end performance of legal RAG systems. As a benchmark, Legal RAG Bench consists of 4,876 passages from the Victorian Criminal Charge Book alongside 100 complex, hand-crafted questions demanding expert knowledge of criminal law and procedure. Both long-form answers and supporting passages are provided. As an evaluation methodology, Legal RAG Bench leverages a full factorial design and novel hierarchical error decomposition framework, enabling apples-to-apples comparisons of the contributions of retrieval and reasoning models in RAG. We evaluate three state-of-the-art embedding models (Isaacus' Kanon 2 Embedder, Google's Gemini Embedding 001, and OpenAI's Text Embedding 3 Large) and two frontier LLMs (Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.2), finding that information retrieval is the primary driver of legal RAG performance, with LLMs exerting a more moderate effect on correctness and groundedness. Kanon 2 Embedder, in particular, had the largest positive impact on performance, improving average correctness by 17.5 points, groundedness by 4.5 points, and retrieval accuracy by 34 points. We observe that many errors attributed to hallucinations in legal RAG systems are in fact triggered by retrieval failures, concluding that retrieval sets the ceiling for the performance of many modern legal RAG systems. We document why and how we built Legal RAG Bench alongside the results of our evaluations. We also openly release our code and data to assist with reproduction of our findings.

RAG-based legal assistants have been growing in popularity, but LLM hallucinations remain a key issue and potentially undermines justice. While benchmarks have been developed to evaluate progress, many rely on synthetic queries rather than realistic legal scenarios. Moreover, Canadian law remains underrepresented in existing evaluations. To address this gap, we introduce CanLegalRAGBench, a Canadian legal QA benchmark based on realistic queries and expert-annotated answers grounded in case law. Our evaluation shows that retrieval performance is sensitive to design choices and that open-source embedding models are competitive with closed source models. However, it also reveals the limitation of automatic evaluations that penalize systems for retrieving alternative relevant documents. We also find that generated answers often diverge from gold responses, either with hallucinations or by producing overly detailed or irrelevant content, with 8-29% of claims not being supported by the retrieved documents. We hope this benchmark will help drive continued progress in addressing limitations of legal RAG systems.