Legal language models require reward signals that capture not only answer correctness but also the multidimensional quality of legal responses. Existing reward methods, however, often rely on coarse-grained holistic judgments, providing limited domain specificity and interpretability. We introduce LexReward, a taxonomy-driven framework for legal reward modeling. LexReward characterizes legal response quality along three complementary dimensions: Style, covering lexical and syntactic quality; Element, assessing legal subjects, facts, statutes, and decisions; and Chain, evaluating the order, completeness, correctness, and non-redundancy of legal reasoning. For each dimension, we develop rubrics that specify evaluation criteria and quality levels. The resulting rewards are used to construct pairwise preference data for Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and reward-model training. Experiments show that the rubric-based rewards reliably distinguish legal responses of different quality and that DPO training on the preference data improves performance across all three dimensions. The learned reward models, LexRM, also support effective downstream optimization: each dimension-specific reward model improves policy performance in its corresponding dimension through reinforcement learning, without requiring reference answers at reward time. Dimension-wise analyses further support the effectiveness of the proposed taxonomy and reward construction.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the LexReward framework. LexReward first constructs a legal taxonomy through expert knowledge, error induction, and conceptual refinement. It then operationalizes the taxonomy into dimension-specific rubric-based rewards, which construct preference data for training a reward model and guide reinforcement learning.
Figure 2: The LexReward taxonomy and its rubric-oriented operationalization. Legal response quality is decomposed into three complementary dimensions: Style (red), Element (orange), and Chain (green). Colored boxes show the dimensions and their constituent criteria, while gray boxes summarize the corresponding evaluation objectives. This structured decomposition supports the development of fine-grained rubrics for legal reward modeling.
Style: CLASE
Element: Legal Δ
Method
Accuracy (%)
Method
SPP-F
CCP
SLP
CAS
CAC
Avg.
Random
50.00
Five-model average
53.37
46.34
28.46
35.88
84.12
49.63
Rubric
79.00
Rubric
79.04
57.03
33.10
39.40
92.80
60.27
Skywork-Qwen
78.50
Skywork-Qwen
75.97
57.84
49.80
64.20
92.40
68.04
Skywork-Llama
52.50
Skywork-Llama
61.15
54.35
29.90
51.80
91.00
57.64
Lawformer
68.50
Lawformer
50.95
44.92
39.00
30.40
88.60
50.77
Table 1: Performance of rubric-based rewards and reward models on datasets evaluating three dimensions. Bold denotes the best result in each column.
Method
Style: CLASE
Element: Legal Δ
CLASE-Mix ( /10 )
SPP-F
CCP
SLP
CAS
CAC
Avg.
Qwen3-8B
3.08
76.80
51.89
45.00
35.00
80.20
57.78
SFT
7.32
75.45
49.85
46.80
49.20
81.80
60.62
DPO
5.21
75.67
52.99
44.20
36.20
81.60
58.13
GRPO (rule)
8.43
80.45
48.67
47.60
51.80
75.80
60.86
GRPO (RM)
8.54
78.64
54.77
56.70
53.40
89.80
66.66
Table 2: Downstream policy performance across the three LexReward dimensions. SPP-F and CCP report entity-level F1; SLP, CAS and CAC report exact-match accuracy; Avg. is the mean of these five Element metrics. Bold denotes the best result in each column, including ties.
Style: CLASE
Element: Legal Δ
Rubric
Accuracy (%)
Rubric
SPP-F
CCP
SLP
CAS
CAC
Avg.
Lexical
76.50
Subjects
65.70
48.76
7.60
32.80
93.00
49.57
Syntactic
77.50
Facts
68.13
50.73
11.20
33.60
93.00
51.33
Overall
79.00
Statutes
79.52
57.64
30.60
39.20
92.80
59.95
Disposition
79.54
56.76
17.50
31.80
93.00
55.72
Overall
79.04
57.03
33.10
39.40
92.80
60.27
Table 3: Ablation study of the Style , Element , and Chain rubric dimensions. Bold denotes the best result in each column.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dimension
Raw deviation
Scale sk
WS
KL divergence
12.307
SW
KL divergence
12.696
COH
Conjunction-rate deviation
0.012
STR
Sentence-statistic distance
26.057
COL
n -gram coverage distance
0.282
Appendix
Table 4: Normalization scales for the Style reward. WS: Word Specificity; SW: Subjective-Word Control; COH: Sentence Cohesion; STR: Sentence Structure; COL: Collocation Correctness.
Figure 3: English translation of the rubric-guided prompt used for Element evaluation. The original experimental prompt was written in Chinese, while its evaluation criteria, scoring procedure, and output structure are preserved in the translation.
Figure 4: English translation of the reasoning-step extraction prompt used for Chain evaluation when predefined reasoning steps are unavailable. The LLM converts free-form reasoning into an ordered sequence of labeled steps, which is subsequently scored by rule-based rubrics. The original experimental prompt was written in Chinese.