Legal Domain

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being adopted in the legal domain. However, despite their strong performance, LLMs are prone to generating incorrect or hallucinated outputs, raising serious concerns about their reliability in high-stakes domains such as law. Detecting the correctness of responses of LLM-based systems is therefore a critical challenge. In this work, we explore the potential of leveraging internal artifacts of LLM to detect the correctness of their predictions in legal-domain classification tasks. We develop approaches that utilize features derived from these internal artifacts to build downstream classifiers capable of identifying incorrect LLM outputs. We evaluate our approach on two representative legal classification tasks: bail decision prediction and statute violation prediction. Our experimental results demonstrate that LLMs' internal artifacts are reliable indicators for detecting incorrect predictions in legal classification tasks, and can be applied to enhance the reliability of LLM-based classification systems.

Autonomous Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in electronic discovery (e-discovery), where compounding errors across multi-step reasoning chains can constitute legal malpractice. Unlike single-turn retrieval, agentic workflows operating over privileged document corpora exhibit a class of failure we term "trajectory collapse": an early misclassification silently propagates, rendering an entire privilege review invalid. This paper makes three contributions. First, we propose a structured taxonomy of agentic failures in legal information retrieval, organized by functional stage. Second, we introduce a four-layer verification architecture -- spanning planning, reasoning, execution, and uncertainty quantification -- designed to intercept these failures before they compound. Third, we present a preliminary simulation study on a synthetic e-discovery corpus that demonstrates how mandatory Human-on-the-Loop (HOTL) escalation thresholds reduce privilege-waiver risk relative to fully autonomous baselines. Our results suggest that calibrated uncertainty thresholds can reduce privilege-waiver risk by up to 61% versus fully autonomous deployment, while routing fewer than one quarter of documents to attorney review.

Court proceedings contain valuable evidence about human smuggling networks, but this information is often buried within unstructured, jargon-heavy legal documents. While large language models (LLMs) can support knowledge graph construction through automated information extraction, existing approaches rely on general-purpose models that are not tailored to the entity and relationship definitions required in this domain. We introduce FineREX, a streamlined knowledge graph construction pipeline built around a fine-tuned LLM for named entity recognition and relationship extraction (NER-RE). Using a manually annotated dataset of $512$ text chunks, FineREX achieves absolute improvements of 15.50% and 31.46% in entity and relationship F1-score, respectively, compared to a larger general-purpose baseline. These gains translate into higher-quality knowledge graphs, reducing legal noise by nearly half and lowering node duplication on long documents from 17.78% to 11.17%. By eliminating document rewriting and redundant extraction stages, FineREX also reduces end-to-end processing time by 50.0%. Our results demonstrate that domain-specific fine-tuning can substantially outperform larger general-purpose models while improving both the quality and efficiency of knowledge graph construction for illicit network analysis.

Civil litigation is inherently a life-cycle process: what a lawyer drafts on day one constrains what unfolds at trial months later. Yet existing legal benchmarks evaluate isolated subtasks, and prior legal-agent simulators reinitialize each scenario from shared ground truth, leaving cross-stage causal dependencies unmodeled. We present LegalWorld, a life-cycle interactive environment that models Chinese civil litigation as a causally connected state chain of five stages (seven sub-scenarios), grounded in 75,309 paired Chinese civil judgments. We pair it with reusable infrastructure (local memory, global case memory, a Skill/Tool library) that keeps each dispute consistent across its full life cycle. Building on this environment, we construct LongJud-Bench to evaluate agent capability across all five connected stages. 18,992 ratings from 217 legal-background evaluators confirm that LegalWorld trajectories are procedurally faithful and role-consistent; and a capability-level cross-model evaluation reveals sharp divergences that aggregate scores cannot expose, with no single backbone leading across consultation, drafting, and courtroom advocacy. Detailed resources will be released publicly.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities across diverse tasks, yet their performance on jurisdiction-specific legal reasoning remains underexplored. We present TW-LegalBench that utilizes Taiwanese legal system's rich official corpus open to the public to fill the gap in evaluating LLMs on Taiwanese law, among common-law benchmarks that focus on English sources and civil-law benchmarks focusing on sources of Simplified Chinese. TW-LegalBench comprises three task types: (1) over 16,000 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) across five years of official examinations in 18 professional domains; (2) 117 open-ended essay questions (OEQs) from examinations for legal professionals with official scoring rubrics; and (3) more than 14,000 legal judgment prediction (LJP) instances covering hundreds of crime categories. We evaluate 13 LLMs using accuracy for MCQs, a decomposed LLM-as-Judge framework based on the scoring rubric points for OEQs, and metrics for sentencing accuracy and statute citation for LJP. Our results reveal that top-performing models exceed the passing threshold for qualified lawyers (passing rate: 11%) but fall short of that for judges and prosecutors (passing rate: 1~2%). For LJP, while models demonstrate reasonable verdict type accuracy and sentence prediction capability, they struggle to cite exact legal articles. These findings highlight that reliable legal text generation remains challenging for LLMs, even though their performance on qualification examinations approaches human level.

Large language models now produce legal text of at least median quality, yet no existing benchmark can evaluate whether they perform doctrinal legal reasoning, which forms the interpretive core of legal work, rather than the ancillary, paralegal tasks that most current legal-AI evaluations measure. This measurement gap is not only methodological but legal: the EU AI Act makes "appropriate accuracy" a binding requirement for high-risk AI used in the judicial domain, yet that requirement cannot acquire operational content without the very doctrinal-reasoning benchmark the field lacks.

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. We present LegalHalluLens, an auditing framework with three components: typed hallucination profiles across four legally-motivated claim categories (numeric, temporal, obligation/entitlement, factual) over CUAD (Hendrycks et al., 2021); a Risk Direction Index (RDI) that reduces omission-versus-invention bias to a single deployment-comparable scalar; and a typed debate pipeline calibrated to both magnitudes and directions. Across 510 contracts and 249,252 clause-level instances we measure a within-model gap of approximately 38-40 pp between obligation/numeric and temporal claims that aggregate reporting hides, and show that two systems with matched 52% rates can carry opposite RDIs. The debate pipeline reduces fabricated detections by 45% with per-category gains tracking the diagnosis, matching commercial APIs with a substantially smaller backbone (4B active parameters). Typed profiles and RDI surface failure modes that aggregate metrics hide; we further show these diagnostics serve as calibration inputs for multi-agent debate pipelines, where Skeptic challenges and asymmetric gates targeted at measured failure modes outperform generically-tuned debate. The framework supports direction-aware procurement, accountability, and agent design for legal AI deployed in the wild.

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. We argue that current benchmarks are not equipped to support this assumption because they evaluate legal reasoning over inputs that have already been preprocessed by legal experts, which measures the upper bound of model performance. Access to justice depends on a lower bound: how models perform when inputs come from pro se litigants, whose prompts may contain noisy narratives, buried facts, omissions, folk-legal assumptions, and surface-level errors. These degradations are comparable to conditions under which LLMs are known to degrade in the general machine learning literature, including long-context sensitivity, underspecification, hallucination, and typographical perturbations. We connect evidence from pro se literature with this body of machine learning research and present a small perturbation experiment on LEXam, a legal benchmark, to illustrate the gap between these two bounds. If model development continues to focus on benchmarks that measure only the upper bound, this gap may remain hidden or even widen. We conclude by calling for legal benchmarks that directly measure robustness under pro se-like inputs so that access-to-justice claims about legal AI can become empirically testable.

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on reasoning tasks, but whether this reflects faithful logical inference or heuristic approximation remains unclear. We study this question in legal entailment by comparing three paradigms, including pure LLM classification, LLM-based Formal Reasoning, and solver-based Formal Reasoning using the Z3 SMT solver, on a re-annotated subset of ContractNLI across five LLMs. Our re-annotation reveals a systematic and measurable gap between pragmatic legal interpretation and strict formal entailment, where a substantial proportion of legally sound inferences are not formally grounded without additional unstated assumptions. While introducing formal structure improves accuracy, with LLM-based Formal Reasoning achieving the highest benchmark performance, we show that this gain does not imply faithful reasoning. We identify three recurring failure modes: scope laundering, where LLMs report solver-inconsistent classifications without executing the underlying formal reasoning, producing conclusions that appear logically grounded but are not; implicit constraint blindness, where LLMs overlook logical constraints present in formal representations; and program synthesis failures, where LLMs generate incorrect Z3 code despite structured prompting. Critically, scope laundering persists across all models, raising serious concerns about the faithfulness of LLM-based formal reasoning as a proxy for symbolic execution. These results reveal a fundamental gap between benchmark accuracy and logical faithfulness.

We presented a neuron-level analysis of legal-domain reasoning in LLMs, comparing it with other applied domain tasks across seven open-weight models. Using neuron attribution scores to rank and suppress influential neurons, we confirmed that suppressing the identified neurons collapses accuracy on the target task, whereas suppressing the same number of random neurons does not. We further found a small subset of neurons influential across all seven tasks; once these are removed, suppressing the remaining neurons degrades only the task they were identified from, revealing genuinely task-specific neurons in every model studied. Within the legal domain, the three benchmarks exhibit relatively high neuron overlap and tend to be affected jointly, suggesting of legal components neurons that span jurisdictions. The distribution of identified neurons in our experiments suggests that the hypothesis that influential neurons are concentrated in middle MLP layers may depend on the input format and content, rather than being a universal phenomenon.

Lawyer-client consultation is a critical starting point for legal services. Effective legal assistance hinges on eliciting sufficient and truthful information from clients in order to devise strategies that best protect their interests. This task requires Large Language Models (LLMs) not only to perform robust legal reasoning, but also to strategically elicit material facts through multi-turn interactions and effectively guide clients with diverse personalities. Yet existing legal benchmarks overlook this interactive capability. To fill this gap, we introduce DLawBench, a diagnostic benchmark for real-world legal consultation. Drawing on realistic client behavior, we characterize lawyer-client interactions into four types: Cooperative, Dependent, Withdrawn, and Adversarial. Using dialogues grounded in real cases, DLawBench evaluates whether LLMs can effectively conduct legal consultation under realistic conditions. DLawBench comprises 461 cases from Chinese and U.S. law, 5,532 paired fact entries, 3,411 inquiry rubrics, and 3,348 issue-resolution rubrics, and evaluates 26 representative LLMs. Systematic experiments show substantial headroom: the best-performing model, GPT-5.5, achieves only 0.562 on consultation-grounded legal reasoning. More importantly, DLawBench exposes both sycophancy in legal consultation and a paradox: models perform worse when clients need guidance most.

This paper presents the participation of team PSL in the QIAS 2026 Shared Task on Arabic Islamic inheritance reasoning. The task evaluates the ability of large language models to solve inheritance cases that require legal interpretation, multi-step reasoning, and precise numerical computation. We compare \textit{commercial} and \textit{open-source} models under a unified prompting strategy to assess their effectiveness in structured legal reasoning with minimal task-specific adaptation. \ Our results show a clear gap in reliability between the two model families. Commercial models demonstrate stronger performance in identifying eligible heirs, applying exclusion rules, and maintaining consistency across reasoning steps. In contrast, open-source models exhibit greater instability, particularly in cases involving dependent legal decisions and fractional share adjustments. The best performance is achieved by \textit{Gemini 2.5 Flash}, with an MRE of $0.989$.

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. We argue that these failures are not residual confabulations to be eliminated by scaling language models, but symptoms of an architectural mismatch between probabilistic retrieval and the hierarchical, temporal, and institutional structure of legal knowledge. We develop the argument in three moves. First, we articulate the ontological commitment of legal knowledge as a triad of properties derivable from classical legal theory: hierarchical and mereological structure, diachronic dynamism under operational closure, and causal traceability of institutional provenance grounded in the duty of justification. Second, we identify three corresponding pathologies of retrieval (mereological blindness, diachronic blindness, and causal opacity), each developed with an operational definition, a failure mechanism, a canonical example, and detection criteria for diagnostic use. Third, we review the state of the art through this lens, showing that existing approaches address these requirements unevenly and do not yet compose into a paradigm that treats them as co-constitutive. From this analysis we derive four architectural commitments that characterize the deterministic-by-design direction for legal retrieval: ontological primacy, event reification, bitemporal correctness, and deterministic interaction protocols. The framework concerns quaestio juris (which norms apply and in what state) rather than the downstream tasks that act on identified norms, and addresses legislative and constitutional retrieval primarily, with interpretive time as an explicit extension.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to real-world legal tasks, evaluating the reliability of their open-ended legal responses has become essential. These tasks require context-sensitive answers and allow little room for error, motivating fine-grained and diagnostic evaluation that can identify specific sources of response quality failures. We introduce LexRubric, a rubric-based benchmark for evaluating open-ended Chinese legal tasks. LexRubric contains 649 instances from legal consultation and judicial examination, which reflect both everyday legal needs and professional legal reasoning and cover 14 legal scenarios. It further includes 12,337 expert-written atomic scoring criteria organized under a unified six-dimensional framework, enabling accurate evaluation and diagnostic analysis across tasks and evaluation dimensions. To validate the reliability of the evaluation, we test multiple judge models and compare model-based judgments with human judgments. We further evaluate 18 recent general and legal-domain LLMs on LexRubric. Results show that different models exhibit distinct capability profiles, and that open-ended legal tasks remain challenging for current LLMs. Data is available at: https://github.com/foggpoy/LexRubric.

Rule-following agents tasked with executing policies and regulations often fail via Silent Scope Omission (SSO): a model applies a general rule but silently drops nested exceptions or counter-exceptions, producing outputs that appear compliant yet break on important edge cases. Although such failures are often framed as an agentic-systems problem, the underlying bottleneck is statutory and policy understanding, a capability typically studied in legal NLP. However, most existing legal NLP benchmarks emphasize end-task outcomes, which can overlook the structural omissions that cause SSO. To diagnose and mitigate SSO, we introduce NormBench, a benchmark of 2,290 provisions spanning Chinese (laws and local policies), English (U.S. tax law, GDPR, and corporate policies), and cross-lingual settings, designed for defeasible scope parsing: identifying precisely which clause overrides which. NormBench uses Span-Grounded Deontic Trees (SG-DT), a compiler-style intermediate representation that anchors every logical branch to source spans and requires explicit exclusion guards, enabling deterministic compilation and audit. Evaluations of frontier LLMs reveal two recurring pathologies: (1) Recursion Decay, where performance drops sharply as defeater depth increases, and (2) an Auditability Trap, where models retrieve relevant spans but fail to assemble correct control flow. Using SG-DT as a constrained intermediate output improves whole-tree fidelity and defeater recovery, and downstream experiments show that its utility is mechanism-specific: gains concentrate on exception-active, SSO-prone cases, while aggregate accuracy can be mixed when the added structure is unnecessary or parser fidelity is low.

Large language models (LLMs) now solve a wide range of expert-level exams at or above human level, yet remain brittle on specialised, evidence-intensive domains such as law. On these tasks, errors arise not only from gaps in world knowledge but also from subtle distinctions between pieces of evidence and inconsistent use of supporting evidence. The most common aggregator over sampled chain-of-thought (CoT) traces, majority vote, returns the most popular answer regardless of whether its evidence is actually strongest. We propose to treat the selection of CoT reasoning fragments into a set of evidence as an explicit combinatorial optimisation problem, allowing well-supported but minority hypotheses to override noisy majorities, and to evaluate the approach on legal-reasoning benchmarks that are particularly sensitive to evidence quality. We introduce EP-HUBO (Evidence Pool Higher-Order Binary Optimisation), which generates multiple CoT traces with a small local model, parses fragments into per-hypothesis evidence pools, solves a higher-order unconstrained binary optimisation per pool with quality-derived weights (relevance, specificity, distinctiveness), and delegates a single adjudication call per question to a frontier model. We evaluate EP-HUBO on two evidence-intensive legal benchmarks using both simulated annealing on classical hardware and the Dirac-3 photonic entropy-quantum machine from Quantum Computing Inc. HUBO-style optimisation gives a principled way to aggregate reasoning fragments while preserving minority-but-correct hypotheses, and is most valuable in low-contamination domains where frontier models have not already absorbed the benchmark material.

We perform the largest known computational analysis of Canadian news narratives about police-involved deaths, spanning 4,000 articles from the last quarter-century. We develop a novel computational model, PerspectiveGap, grounded in prior sociological work on media representation of policing. We find that reporting on police-involved deaths on average features perspectives from state bureaucrats at a rate nearly three times as much as perspectives from other members of the public, including relatives, community members, eyewitnesses, lawyers representing the family, or civil liberties groups. A considerable fraction of articles contain no points of view from civilian actors, though civilian representation has increased in recent years. Qualitatively, we find that state bureaucrats' accounts of these deaths tend to be clinical and procedural, while civilian discourse carries considerably more emotional valence. The PerspectiveGap framework developed here can be contextualized to other jurisdictions, offering a scalable approach for analyzing how media systems construct narratives around policing and accountability.

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. A large-scale empirical study on Harvey LAB -- $12{,}510$ agent trajectories -- shows that even frontier agents remain far from completing matters in a single pass: per-criterion accuracy climbs with stronger models while strict matter completion stalls. We then introduce \textsc{Parthenon}, a self-evolving legal-agent framework that factors Model, Harness, Agent roles, legal Knowledge, deterministic Tools, and procedural Skills into auditable surfaces for source traceability, date and number grounding, deliverable compliance, and issue closure. Finally, an anti-leakage learning loop converts scored failures into task-agnostic edits to skills, tools, and knowledge, letting the system improve with experience -- as a firm refines its checklists and playbooks after each matter -- without touching model weights. Across our large-scale empirical analysis, \textsc{Parthenon} substantially improves the performance of state-of-the-art models and harnesses on legal-matter tasks.

Retrieval-augmented generation systems for legal question answering typically retrieve passages based on semantic similarity and provide them to a language model, which then generates cited answers. Prior work assumes that highly ranked passages are most likely to be usefully cited by the model. Perturbation-based attribution methods, such as C-LIME, have been used exclusively for post-hoc explanation. However, on the AQuAECHR benchmark, semantic similarity does not correlate with passage attribution. Within a retriever's candidate pool, similarity-based ranking performs worse than random selection at surfacing gold citation paragraphs. To address this limitation, a lightweight cross-encoder is trained on continuous perturbation-based attribution scores to re-rank passages prior to generation. This approach is evaluated on the AQuAECHR benchmark, using two language models and five-fold cross-validation. The re-ranker substantially improves citation faithfulness and alignment with gold expert answers. Notably, two re-rankers trained independently on different models converge beyond their raw attribution agreement. This finding indicates that the cross-encoder reduces model-specific noise and produces a shared relevance signal that partially transfers across models, although same-model re-ranking remains more effective. These results demonstrate that perturbation-based attribution provides a practical, model-agnostic training signal for citation-aware retrieval.

The FETCH classifier generates follow-up questions to help refine the best match for the applicant's legal problem, using a low-cost ensemble of LLMs. In this paper, we describe an expert attorney and LLM-assisted evaluation of the follow-up question approach in FETCH and show that while low-cost LLMs perform well at classification tasks, generating high-quality plain-language questions in this setting appears to require a more sophisticated and higher-cost model. Through discussion with legal intake workers, we propose a rubric for the evaluation of legal intake classification questions, and we find that prompt engineering alone is not enough to improve question quality for intake purposes. We also find that LLM-as-judge and human ratings diverge. We demonstrate that with the addition of a single high-cost model, GPT-5, the classifier can elicit relevant information from applicants for legal help, and that the questions lead to more accurate performance at classification tasks. We also find uneven fact elicitation across different categories, including domestic violence, at odds with family law screening protocols, suggesting the value of including dedicated screening panels for certain areas of law.

Visual evidence has long been treated as a reliable form of legal proof, but advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are undermining that assumption. This article asks how well humans and frontier multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can distinguish authentic evidentiary photographs from AI-generated counterparts in the object-centric scenarios typical of civil disputes. We built Synthetic Legal Evidence Detection (SLED-1400), a dataset of 200 authentic evidence images paired with 1,200 synthetic counterparts produced by six contemporary text-to-image generators across ten evidence categories. The same stimuli and response format were used in a controlled web experiment with 136 lay participants and in a standardized evaluation of four MLLMs (GPT-5.1, Gemini-3-Pro, Gemini-3-Flash, Qwen3-VL-235B). Human accuracy was 64.8% overall, and 48.5% and 51.0% on the two strongest generators (Gemini-3-Pro-Image and Flux-2-Max), indistinguishable from chance. MLLMs never misclassified an authentic image (100% specificity), but missed most synthetic outputs from the harder generators, with average MLLM detection at 5.9% on Gemini-3-Pro-Image outputs. Human and MLLM errors were largely uncorrelated, while the four MLLMs were strongly correlated with each other. Neither group is a reliable standalone authenticator. We argue that visual evidence in legal proceedings should be treated as inherently contestable, and that a workable procedural response must combine trained human review, MLLM screening, and provenance infrastructure such as C2PA Content Credentials.

Endowing large language models with compositional reasoning over specialized documents requires multi-hop training data at scale, where such data rarely exists outside of curated benchmarks built on structured sources. To construct it directly from plain, unannotated text, existing methods ask a single teacher model to jointly discover an evidence path through a document and verbalize it as a question-answer pair. However, these methods degrade sharply when documents are structured around repetitive templates and densely cross-referencing clauses, conditions that characterize most real-world specialized corpora. In this work, we decouple the two operations: reasoning paths are enumerated offline over a graph of contextual keyword centroids, and the teacher is invoked only to verbalize pre-validated paths. The graph enforces five geometric admissibility constraints, for which we provide Gram-matrix arguments establishing that local similarity bounds alone admit endpoint drift up to ${\sim}91^{\circ}$, and that an upper similarity bound is necessary to exit dense embedding cliques formed by boilerplate text. A matched-size ablation isolates the mechanism: at equal training scale, constrained and unconstrained chains yield indistinguishable downstream performance, and the gain at full scale comes from a 4.4$\times$ expansion of the usable corpus rather than from higher per-chain quality -- reframing the role of graph constraints, in this setting, as raising teacher synthesizability rather than improving chain content. Fine-tuning Qwen3-32B on 80K examples constructed from the CUAD legal contract corpus improves closed-book Token F1 from 21.66% to 38.58%. We have released our codes at https://github.com/hkgai-official/GCSCS.

U.S. immigration law spans thousands of pages of official policy, federal regulations, and procedural guidance that change frequently and carry high stakes for petitioners who lack legal representation. We describe the construction of ImmigrationQA, a source-grounded question-answering dataset of 17,058 pairs across 13 immigration subdomains, and the fine-tuning of a Llama 3.2 3B Instruct model on that dataset using parameter-efficient LoRA. The corpus was assembled from 11 primary and secondary sources -- including the USCIS Policy Manual, 8 CFR, BIA precedent decisions, and community Q&A -- yielding 10,056 validated canonical documents and 18,308 text chunks. Structured QA pairs were generated from these chunks using Claude Sonnet 4.6 via five mode-specific prompts, with 22 pairs rejected for insufficient source-span overlap. The fine-tuned model was evaluated against a held-out split of 993 pairs using LLM-as-judge scoring on a 101-example stratified sample. The fine-tuned model scored a mean of 1.08/3.0 (16.8% fully correct; 101-example stratified eval) versus the Llama 3 8B base model at 0.85/3.0 (4% fully correct), a relative improvement of 27% in mean score; a zero-shot Claude Sonnet baseline scored 1.52/3.0 (25% fully correct). The fine-tuned model shows concentrated improvement in procedural subdomains (travel documents, adjustment of status, nonimmigrant visas) while remaining weak on complex legal reasoning and time-sensitive statistics. The full pipeline ran for approximately $29 in cloud compute. All artifacts -- dataset, model, code, and prompt templates -- are publicly released. The system is not a substitute for legal counsel and does not reflect regulatory changes after the corpus crawl date.

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.

Moving beyond simple scalar rewards toward richer world feedback is a natural path to more scalable RL post-training. On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) is a promising recent approach that uses arbitrary feedback as learning signal, yet its reliability compared to established methods, such as GRPO, remains unclear. We identify a strikingly consistent linear correlation between the initial student-self-teacher performance gap and the final performance improvement in OPSD. This relationship holds across context types and model families, providing a powerful predictive law for anticipating the outcome of an OPSD configuration without running the full training procedure. Interestingly, we show that this linear predictability holds with model scale, suggesting a potential basis for new empirical scaling laws on larger models with stronger in-context learning capabilities. In essence, our findings show that OPSD performance can be predicted and tuned before training, offering a principled way to incorporate world feedback as a first-class component of the post-training pipeline.

Deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) for regulatory compliance demands rigorous traceability via comprehensive citations across multi-tiered authority structures. Unlike traditional multi-hop or legal QA, this task requires structured procedural lookups and evidence-set closure rather than entity resolution or case-law reasoning. Existing RAG systems struggle here due to flattened citation edges, fragmented retrieval expansions, and fragile post-hoc attribution. We formalize Regulatory Compliance QA with RegOps-Bench, a novel benchmark featuring an Operational Knowledge Graph derived from complex national R&D regulations. To address these bottlenecks, we propose RefWalk, a unified framework driven by a shared topic anchor. RefWalk traverses cross-document citations, fuses multi-view candidates via max-based aggregation, and enforces per-rule attribution to explicitly map claims to sources. We establish a strong baseline with substantial improvements in retrieval recall and citation accuracy. Finally, a contrastive evaluation on a U.S. health compliance dataset (HIPAA) reveals that existing systems exhibit saturation on flat-structure rules, underscoring the need for RegOps-Bench. Our code is available at https://github.com/yeongjoonJu/RefWalk.

Legal NLP benchmarks overwhelmingly evaluate a single language or aggregate tasks that differ fundamentally across jurisdictions, making cross-lingual comparison impossible. We introduce Multi-Legal-Bench, the first cross-jurisdictional legal benchmark that evaluates identical tasks across six countries (Ukraine, France, Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania), four language families, and 134 million court decisions. The benchmark defines five tasks court-type classification, judgment form classification, case-outcome prediction, legal norm extraction, and cause category prediction mapped to structured metadata from national court registries, forming a deliberately sparse 5x6 task-jurisdiction matrix (20 of 30 cells filled). We evaluate 7 frontier LLMs under zero-shot and 3-shot prompting via AWS Bedrock, with 4 additional small/medium models (3-12B) for scaling analysis. Our results reveal that: (1) task-dependent few-shot effects discovered in Ukrainian replicate across all jurisdictions; (2) no single model dominates any language rankings shift with both task and jurisdiction; (3) cross-lingual few-shot transfer does not follow language proximity: UA->FR (Romance, -2.1 pp) transfers better than UA->PL (Slavic, -13.7 pp), with label-set alignment predicting transfer quality better than language family; and (4) tokenizer fertility, despite a 2.3x spread, does not significantly predict cross-lingual accuracy (r=-0.27, p=0.14), suggesting that model architecture and pretraining data dominate tokenizer efficiency. We release all data, prompts, and model predictions.

Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) has become a core benchmark for evaluating AI in the criminal legal domain, but it only sees criminal cases that have already passed prosecutorial review and been formally indicted. As a result, LJP leaves a substantial blind spot in assessing criminal liability, overlooking cases involving insufficient evidence, no criminal liability, or guilt exempted from punishment. To fill this gap, we propose \textbf{Prosecution Decision Prediction (PDP)}, the first Legal AI task built around prosecutorial review, which classifies each case into prosecution or one of three non-prosecution decisions and reflects legal AI's capabilities in evidence evaluation, legal subsumption, and value-based discretion. We further construct \textbf{PDP-Bench}, a benchmark of 4{,}630 real Chinese prosecutorial decisions spanning 190 charges. Extensive experiments show that state-of-the-art LLMs perform substantially worse on PDP than on LJP and that mainstream enhancement routes fail to close the gap. Moreover, controlled RLVR interventions show that simple outcome rewards fail to produce generalizable PDP discrimination.

We introduce BenGER (Benchmark for German Law), a benchmark and dataset for evaluating LLM systems on subsumption-based legal reasoning in German law. The dataset combines 596 exam-style free-text legal case tasks across multiple levels of legal education and 531 short doctrinal reasoning tasks. It includes a controlled validation subset of timed human-written solutions under both unaided and human-AI co-creation conditions. We evaluate 12 contemporary LLM systems - closed flagship, efficiency-oriented, and open-weight - with a rubric-aligned LLM-as-a-Judge cross-validated against a multi-rater human-grading layer (three blind reviews per solution, six judge families benchmarked against the human pool). Closed-flagship systems lead the leaderboard across all three corpora, human-AI co-creation measurably improves on unaided human work, and the LLM judge tracks human grading at Pearson r=0.76 and Cohen's k=0.60. System rankings are stable across judge families and two judges from independent providers clear the Calderon single-reviewer replacement bar on human-authored solutions.

Graph-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation (GraphRAG) advances flat document retrieval by structuring knowledge as relational graphs, enabling more coherent and effective reasoning. However, applying it to specific domains like legal reasoning faces critical challenges. (i) Legal corpora are heterogeneous, containing multi-granular knowledge from cases, articles and interpretations. A flat knowledge graph cannot adequately differentiate between factual details, applied rules, and abstract principles, limiting accurate retrieval. (ii) Reliable legal judgment demands transparent, evidence-based reasoning. Traditional RAG passes retrieved context directly to an LLM without verification, resulting in opaque, error-prone reasoning. To this end, we propose LegalGraphRAG, a framework designed for reliable legal reasoning. Our approach introduces two core components: a hierarchical legal graph that hierarchically organizes legal sources to enable retrieval at appropriate abstraction levels, and a multi-agent system for reliable legal reasoning, where a Researcher retrieves candidate evidence, an Auditor rigorously verifies its validity against source documents, and an Adjudicator synthesizes the set of verified evidence to render a final judgment. Extensive experiments show that LegalGraphRAG achieves the state-of-the-art performance, outperforming existing GraphRAG baselines in accurate and trustworthy legal analysis. Our code, datasets and implementation details are available at https://github.com/XMUDeepLIT/LegalGraphRAG.

Competition law experts conducting legal research must review extensive volumes of cases, decisions, and judicial reports to identify precedents and assess key elements in competition and merger cases. Although general research assistants such as Claude and ChatGPT and legal assistants such as SaulLM-7B and LegalGPT are increasingly used to assist legal research, they remain inadequate for competition law analysis: they lack specialized domain expertise, provide insufficient official citations, or hallucinate competition law cases. We propose Maat, a ReAct agent that orchestrates tools corresponding to different tasks of the research process. Designed iteratively with competition law experts, Maat grounds cases and findings in official sources using RAG for reliability, provides rich in-line citations, falls back to web search when database coverage is insufficient, and prompts the user for clarification when queries are ambiguous. Maat significantly outperforms all baseline assistants on case-specific tasks and performs within range of the top baseline on theoretical question tasks. The dataset used is available on GitHub.

Computing legal indicators from normative texts is a key task in legal monitoring and policy evaluation, but presents significant challenges due to the complexity, scale, and interpretive nature of legal language, as well as the variability in available document quality. Existing natural language processing techniques and generative models can assist in legal analysis, but often suffer from high risk of hallucinations and lack the interpretability and evidence grounding required for reliable indicator computation. This paper presents N2I-RAG (From Norms to Indicators), an agentic retrieval-augmented generation framework designed to automate the computation of legal indicators in a transparent and traceable way. We integrate adaptive retrieval, llm-based agents, and validation mechanisms in a modular pipeline, where each component performs a defined role in filtering, retrieving, and assessing evidence, and in producing binary legal outcomes linked to identifiable legal provisions. The framework emphasizes traceability by requiring explicit explanations of intermediate decisions and final indicator assignments. We evaluate N2I-RAG using an in-house constructed French marine environmental law corpus that includes both scanned and digital sources. Comparative experiments with multiple language model families demonstrate that the proposed approach consistently outperforms baseline systems, and generalizes well when tested on 2 different bans. The results indicate that agentic retrieval-augmented generation can bridge open-text legal language and standardized indicator computation, offering a foundation for transparent and scalable legal observatories.

Legal reasoning requires distinguishing changes that matter from those that do not. Legal AI should remain stable under legally irrelevant perturbations, but should change when perturbations alter legally material points. We formulate this requirement as a legal-relevance-sensitive evaluation problem: LLMs should only be sensitive to the legally relevant change. We introduce a unified evaluation suite covering should-change and should-not-change evaluation across judicial fairness, robustness, and statute-confusion scenarios. Our evaluation shows that existing legal LLMs are systematically sensitive to legally irrelevant variations and often fail to distinguish related legal elements and statutory rules. To mitigate these failures, we present LexGuard, an adversarial multi-agent framework grounded in formal reasoning. LexGuard formalizes statutes into executable constraints, uses adversarial agents to extract competing fact-statute arguments, and invokes SMT solvers to verify legal satisfaction and logical consistency. Experiments show that LexGuard improves legal reasoning reliability by reducing vulnerability to manipulative framing, improving disambiguation among similar statutes, limiting the influence of legally irrelevant attributes, and increasing consistency under benign reformulations. We show that legal trustworthiness requires not only accuracy, but calibrated sensitivity to legally material changes.

Online Terms of Service often function as contracts of adhesion, creating asymmetries that may expose consumers to potentially abusive clauses. In Chile, assessing such clauses is legally challenging because some provisions clearly violate mandatory consumer law, whereas others depend on broader standards such as good faith and contractual imbalance. We present a retrieval-augmented generation framework for the automated detection and classification of potentially abusive clauses in Chilean Terms of Service. Designed for local execution, it combines efficient clause detection, hybrid dense--sparse retrieval, reranking, and prompt augmentation to support medium-sized open-weight language models. We also introduce the Chilean Abusive Terms of Service Extended corpus, comprising 100 contracts and 10,029 annotated clauses in 24 legally grounded categories spanning illegal, dark, and gray clauses. Experiments comparing commercial and open-weight language models, fine-tuned encoders, and traditional baselines show that retrieval-augmented prompting substantially improves performance and enables local models to approach larger cloud-based systems at lower computational and token cost. The study also contributes a refined legal annotation scheme and a practical design for AI-assisted consumer contract review.

While large language models (LLMs) augmented with agentic search capabilities show promise for legal reasoning, they overlook a fundamental constraint that applicable law must match the temporal context of each case, as retroactive application of statutes violates core legal principles and leads to erroneous conclusions. Our observations reveal that current legal LLMs suffer from temporal bias anchored to their training cutoff, while search agents rarely incorporate temporal constraints into queries, and that web search alone cannot provide the precise statute and precedent citations that legal reasoning demands. To address these challenges, we propose LegalSearch-R1, an end-to-end reinforcement learning framework that pairs local statute RAG for precise article matching with online web search for broader legal knowledge, trained on temporally-indexed data spanning multiple amendment periods to enforce temporal consistency. Extensive experiments on our benchmark covering 13 legal tasks demonstrate that our 7B-parameter agent outperforms state-of-the-art deep research frameworks and specialized legal LLMs by 12.9% to 29.8%, surpasses baselines by 57.7% to 80.3% on temporal consistency, and exhibits robust out-of-domain generalization. The code and data are available at https://github.com/AlexFanw/LegalSearch-R1.

TypedCSIP is a typed counterfactual pretraining method for the conflict-classification task of the LCR-CN benchmark (Zhao et al., 2026): given a (superior, subordinate) provision pair, predict whether the pair conflicts and which of four legal-doctrine types (Responsibility, Condition, Sanction, Definition) describes the inconsistency. We exploit LCR-CN's expert-written minimal revisions as training-time counterfactual supervision; at test time the classifier reads only the original pair. Stage 1 pretrains a shared encoder with a typed Counterfactual Selective Intervention Pretraining objective on (superior, subordinate, expert-revised) triplets, treating the expert revision as a counterfactual that the typed factor head must classify as carrying no conflict evidence. Stage 2 transfers the encoder to a five-way classification head. The confirmatory test was registered on the Open Science Framework before observing v6 measurements: 18 seeds, locked rule requiring mean per-seed difference at least 0.8 pp with both seed-bootstrap and Student-t 95% lower bounds above zero. On the 696-record test split, the v2 variant improves macro-F1 over the strongest single-model baseline by +0.916 pp on chinese-roberta-wwm-ext and +1.288 pp on the SAILER cross-backbone replication; both cells pass the rule. A cold-start stratified result on the 244 Unseen-gB records keeps the gain positive on both backbones. A cross-task diagnostic shows the Stage-2 encoder is classification-specialized and does not transfer to LCR-CN's superior-law retrieval task, so we scope the contribution to conflict classification. We release code, 72 pre-registered prediction files, matched-seed and MLM-control auxiliaries, and the OSF pre-registration record.

Formalizing legal provisions promises machine-accessible law and automated legal reasoning, and recent LLMs make it tempting to generate such formalizations directly from statutory text. However, any formalization makes implicit interpretive choices whose consequences are hard to anticipate, especially if an LLM is the author. We present a method for systematically comparing different formalizations of the same legal provision by their inferences on individual cases. Given multiple formalizations of a provision, we match them at the node level, derive a shared interface for each pair from the matching, and use a SAT solver to enumerate the edge cases on which any two formalizations disagree. Selected edge cases are then verbalized into concrete factual scenarios that a legal expert can examine and act on. We apply our method to formalizations of ten EU provisions generated by nine frontier LLMs. We find that behavioral divergence between formalizations is essentially uncorrelated with their structural agreement and that the verbalized cases reveal qualitatively distinct types of disagreement, including divergences that mirror genuine controversies in the legal commentary.

We present a fully automated pipeline that transforms large collections of court decisions into legal commentaries for statutes - without providing any handcrafted doctrinal framework. Using 4.555 decisions of the German Federal Court of Justice that cite sections 242, 280, 812 and 823 of the German Civil Code (BGB), we extract paragraph-level chunks, summarize their reasoning, and derive keywords, which are embedded and clustered. For each cluster, an LLM generates headings and synthesizes citation-rich sections, which are then merged into coherent commentaries by four state-of-the-art LLMs. We evaluate along five dimensions - topical relevance, heading-match, citation faithfulness, cluster distinction and logical ordering - using both a human expert and an LLM-judge. Our results show that commentary-like argument mining from court decisions to generate reports that can be refreshed within minutes at minimal cost is feasible, yet they highlight limitations arising from restricted sources and the normativity of legal reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance in the legal domain, demonstrating notable potential in Legal Question Answering (LQA). However, unlike general QA, LQA requires answers that are not only accurate but also rigorously grounded in explicit legal authority. In statutory LQA, many questions require multi-hop reasoning across multiple legal issues, substantially increasing the risk of hallucination, thereby making accurate retrieval of supporting statutory provisions a critical prerequisite. Despite recent progress in multi-hop QA, existing approaches often rely on reasoning in natural language or retrieval without explicit query reformulation, leaving the vocabulary gap between user questions and statutory text largely unaddressed. To address this challenge, we propose Decompose-and-Refine (DaR), a statute-grounded LQA framework that tightly integrates step-wise question decomposition with parametric knowledge-based query refinement. DaR progressively decomposes a complex legal question into atomic sub-questions and generates statute-aligned parametric queries for each sub-question, enabling the selection of a single most central statutory provision corresponding to each legal issue. We evaluate DaR on KoBLEX, a Korean multi-hop LQA benchmark grounded in statutory law, using Qwen3-32B and Gemma3-27B. Experimental results demonstrate that DaR consistently improves both retrieval accuracy and final answer quality over existing approaches. Moreover, by explicitly separating sub-questions and their corresponding statutory provisions, DaR facilitates transparent, issue-level verification of complex legal reasoning processes.

Legal NLP benchmarks evaluate models on randomly split data, implicitly assuming that legal language is stationary. We test this assumption by fine-tuning four transformer encoders -- XLM-RoBERTa (base and large) and their legal-domain variants -- on Ukrainian court decisions from three temporal epochs defined by geopolitical disruptions: pre-war (2008-2013), hybrid war (2014-2021), and full-scale invasion (2022-2026). Each model is trained on one epoch and evaluated on all three, producing a 3x3 cross-temporal generalization matrix. Four findings emerge. (1) Forward degradation is severe: models trained on pre-war data lose up to 27.2 percentage points of macro-F1 when applied to full-scale invasion era decisions. (2) The degradation is asymmetric: backward transfer (full-scale to pre-war) is substantially more robust than forward transfer, consistent with the hypothesis that legal language is additive. (3) Legal-domain pretraining (Legal-XLM-R) does not improve absolute performance but reduces forward degradation magnitude and asymmetry. (4) Chronological continual learning eliminates catastrophic forgetting for general XLM-R: pre-war knowledge is fully retained (+1.8 to +6.2 pp) while full-scale performance gains +16.5 to +19.0 pp; reverse-chronological training causes severe forgetting. Cross-jurisdictional pretraining on Swiss Judgment Prediction data improves absolute performance but does not reduce temporal degradation magnitude, confirming that temporal drift is an intrinsic property of legal language evolution. The dataset (428K decisions across three epochs) is publicly available as a LEXTREME contribution.

Large language models are increasingly used for legal research, yet their fixed training cutoffs and reliance on static parametric knowledge are at odds with the evolving nature of statutory law. We study two temporal failure modes: post-cutoff staleness, where models apply superseded rules after legislative amendments, and recency bias, where models prefer newer provisions even when a historical version governs the fact pattern. To this end, we present a benchmark of 312 expert-validated, time-sensitive German statutory QA pairs spanning three categories: Post-Cutoff Amendment Questions, Pre-Amendment Questions, and Multi-Provision Pre-Amendment Questions. We evaluate five LLMs by OpenAI, Anthropic and DeepSeek under four inference settings: Vanilla, Web-search, and two retrieval-augmented variants that enforce temporal validity via a fact date extraction and version filtering. Using an LLM-as-a-judge validated against human expert ratings, we find severe degradation in the Vanilla post-cutoff setting. Both RAG approaches substantially improve performance across all question types, while web search yields unstable gains and exhibits a marked recency bias on historically anchored tasks. Our results indicate that reliable legal QA requires treating temporal validity as a hard constraint.

Suicide is a leading cause of death in the United States, and understanding the circumstances that precede it requires extracting structured information from death investigation narratives. Many of these circumstances require semantic inference beyond simple keyword matching. We develop a ``Complexity Score'' algorithm that analyzes coding manual structure to predict when detailed prompts with full coding guidelines improve over name-only prompts. We then construct a hybrid approach that selects prompt strategy per circumstance. We evaluate large language models (LLMs) against fine-tuned RoBERTa on 25 inferentially complex circumstances from the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS). We found that LLMs substantially outperform on low-prevalence circumstances where training data is insufficient. We further demonstrate that our framework generalizes across frontier LLMs, with GPT-5.2, Gemini 2.5 Pro and Llama-3 70B showing consistent performance patterns. These findings support a hybrid architecture where LLMs handle rare, inferentially complex circumstances while fine-tuned models handle common ones.

Grading German legal exam solutions faces growing volumes and a shortage of qualified graders, delaying feedback and creating a bottleneck. At the same time, it is a high-stakes expert task, since state exam grades strongly influence career outcomes in Germany. Despite this practical relevance, literature lacks systematic studies on effective methods for grading legal exams. To address this gap, we investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can support the automated grading of German legal case solutions in criminal and public law, thereby enabling scalable feedback and student self-testing. We present a systematic evaluation of 27 proprietary and open-source LLMs, benchmarking prompting strategies that incrementally add task-related information, such as a sample solution and a grading rubric. Using quadratic weighted kappa (QWK), reasoning-oriented LLMs can approximate expert grading in public law when given a sample solution and a grading rubric (up to 0.91), compared to 0.60 in criminal law, suggesting a harder grading task in criminal law. Beyond single-model grading, ensembling improves agreement by up to 0.15 over its best member and can offer an alternative to stronger closed-source single models. In addition, our findings suggest that effective prompt design and model selection are necessary for reliable LLM-based grading of legal exams.

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. In high-stake domains such as law, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is commonly used to mitigate hallucinations in generated responses. Nonetheless, prior work shows that RAG systems, whether general-purpose or legal-specific, still hallucinate at varying rates, making fine-grained evaluation essential. Despite the need, existing evaluation frameworks for legal RAG systems lack the granularity required to provide detailed analysis of retrieval and generation performance separately. Moreover, current benchmarks are largely English-only and centered on legal expert queries, overlooking non-expert needs. We introduce ClaimRAG-LAW, a comprehensive dataset for legal RAG that supports French and English, targets both experts and non-experts, and includes diverse question types reflecting realistic scenarios. We further apply a fine-grained evaluation framework of state-of-the-art legal RAG systems, revealing limitations in retrieval, generation, and claim-level analysis in the legal domain.

Generative artificial intelligence now synthesizes photorealistic imagery, audio, and video at a cost that defeats traditional forensic intuition. The legal consequences span three regimes studied so far in isolation: international operational law, domestic procedure, and product regulation. This article presents a unified evidentiary framework that maps cryptographic content provenance, robust statistical watermarking, and zero knowledge attestation to the proof requirements of each regime. We define a five tier threat model spanning naive regeneration, adversarial laundering, cross model regeneration, active watermark removal, and insider provenance forgery. We release a public benchmark of 12000 generated items across image, audio, and video modalities under six laundering pipelines for 72000 evaluation samples. We evaluate four representative schemes and report true positive rate at fixed false positive rate, robustness area under the curve, computational overhead, and a regime conditioned legal sufficiency score. We translate empirical detection bounds into legal sufficiency thresholds for command decisions under the law of armed conflict, for criminal and civil admissibility under domestic procedure, and for persistence audits under the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act and analogous regimes. The result is a reproducible reference pipeline, a public benchmark, and model annexes that lawyers, engineers, and operators can deploy together.

Legal proposition generation is central to legal reasoning and doctrinal scholarship, yet remain under-examined in Legal NLP. This paper investigates the automatic generation and evaluation of legal propositions from decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union using large language models (LLMs). We introduce LP-Eval, a three-step evaluation rubric co-designed with legal experts that decomposes legal proposition quality into formal validity and substantive dimensions. Using this rubric, we release a dataset of two experts' annotations for 100 LLM-generated legal propositions. Our results show that LLMs can generate predominantly well-formed and high-quality propositions, while expert evaluations reveal higher quality for propositions derived from well established cases than from recent ones. We further examine LLMs as evaluators and find that rubric-guided LLM judgments align more closely with expert assessments than direct overall scoring, but remain insensitive to finer-grained distinctions captured by human experts.

This paper investigates chunking strategies for retrieval-augmented generation on German statutory law, using the German Civil Code as a structured benchmark corpus. We implement and compare a range of segmentation approaches, including structural units (sections, subsections, sentences, propositions), fixed-size windows, contextual chunking, semantic clustering, Lumber-style chunking, and RAPTOR-based hierarchical retrieval. All methods are evaluated on a legal question-answering dataset with section-level gold labels, measuring recall, query latency, index build time, and storage requirements. Results show that chunking strategies aligned with the inherent legal structure - particularly section and subsection - based retrieval-achieve the highest recall, while more complex approaches that override this structure perform worse. These simpler methods also offer favorable computational efficiency compared to LLM-intensive techniques such as contextual chunking, RAPTOR, and Lumber. The findings highlight a key trade-off between semantic enrichment and operational cost, and demonstrate that preserving domain-specific structure is critical for effective legal information retrieval.

Automating the classification of negative treatment in legal precedent is a critical yet nuanced NLP task where misclassification carries significant risk. To address the shortcomings of standard accuracy, this paper introduces a more robust evaluation framework. We benchmark modern Large Language Models on a new, expert-annotated dataset of 239 real-world legal citations and propose a novel Average Severity Error metric to better measure the practical impact of classification errors. Our experiments reveal a performance split. Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash achieved the highest accuracy on a high-level classification task (79.1%), while OpenAI's GPT-5-mini was the top performer on the more complex fine-grained schema (67.7%). This work establishes a crucial baseline, provides a new context-rich dataset, and introduces an evaluation metric tailored to the demands of this complex legal reasoning task.

Co-citation structure is widely assumed to provide stable retrieval signal in legal information systems. We test this assumption longitudinally by constructing UA-StatuteRetrieval, a benchmark that measures co-citation predictability across 20 annual snapshots (2007-2026) of 396 million codex citations from 101 million Ukrainian court decisions. Using a leave-one-out protocol over the full bipartite citation graph, we find that Adamic-Adar MRR declines 33% on a fixed set of articles (from 0.43 to 0.29) and 47% under a train/test temporal split (from 0.51 to 0.27) confirming genuine temporal decay rather than compositional shift or evaluation artifact. The decay is non-uniform: criminal procedure maintains stable co-citation patterns (MRR ~0.40), while civil law degrades from 0.35 to 0.15, coinciding with the 2017 judicial reform. Hub articles (>100K citations) resist decay, but mid-frequency articles (1K-10K) -- the practical retrieval frontier lose half their predictability. A BM25 text baseline decays even faster (31%), and embedding drift analysis with E5-large reveals a 4.3% semantic shift in how articles are cited, providing a mechanistic explanation for the observed decay. The benchmark is released at https://huggingface.co/datasets/overthelex/ua-statute-retrieval.

Law enforcement agencies are accumulating vast amounts of body-worn camera (BWC) footage. However, this remains operationally opaque. That is, analysts and trainers still have to invest considerable time watching full-length videos to pinpoint the start of key encounters and identify the points where activity shifts to something more physically intense. We present an approach to process BWC video into a time-aligned sequence of fixed-length 10-second windows, processed and labeled using a privacy-conscious protocol. Each window is labeled with two dimensions of information: (i) the operational context of the window and (ii) the level of motion intensity within the window, with low-evidence labels for windows for which insufficient evidence exists due to darkness, blur or occlusion. We train models to classify windows based on these two axes using frames sampled from each window encoded using CLIP model and aggregated into a window-level representation. We extract dense optical flow statistics for each window to capture motion intensity. On test windows the best context model achieves 78.75% accuracy, and the best-accuracy activity model achieves 88.33%. We also included integrity audits to show the results and how the visual timeline representations support faster incident review and make the officer training workflow more practical.

Multi-label legal annotation requires assigning multiple labels from large, evolving taxonomies to long, fact-intensive documents, often under limited supervision. Parametric encoders typically require task-specific training and retraining when the label set changes, while prompting generative large language models becomes costly and degrades as the label space grows. We cast legal annotation as retrieval: we embed documents and label descriptions with a frozen retrieval model and predict labels via k-nearest neighbors in the embedding space, enabling updates by re-embedding and re-indexing rather than gradient-based backpropagation. Across three legal datasets (ECtHR-A, ECtHR-B, and Eurlex with 100 labels), retrieval achieves competitive accuracy and strong data efficiency; on Eurlex, Qwen-8B retrieval improves Macro-F1 from 40.41 (GPT-5.2, zero-shot) to 49.12 while reducing estimated compute by 20-30 times compared to fine-tuning. With only (N=100) training samples, retrieval nearly doubles Micro-F1 over hierarchical Legal-BERT on ECtHR-A (48.29 vs. 27.87). We also quantify a reliability failure mode of generative inference: GPT-5.2 hallucinates labels outside the provided taxonomy in 0.12-0.9% of test samples under deterministic decoding. In contrast, retrieval strictly respects defined label sets, eliminating hallucination by design. These results suggest retrieval-model-based annotators are a practical, deployable alternative for high-cardinality and rapidly changing legal label spaces.

Law enforcement reports contain structured fields and written narratives. However, many incident facts that are needed for review, police training, and investigations are in natural language and require manual reading. We propose a framework using symbolic methods for converting narratives into evidence-linked facts. Our objective is to measure the value of narratives to recover incident details only from the unstructured text and build temporal graphs with time cues and domain axioms. We achieve this by redacting personal identifiers, semantic parsing, predicate mapping to ontology, and reasoning. We evaluate the symbolic approach on 450 property crime reports and a short human review. Of the extracted events from the system, 54.1% had a confidence score of at least 0.80 and 93.7% were mapped through the PropBank--VerbNet--WordNet semantic path. 100% agreement was reached on incident initiation, stolen items, and temporal cues and lower agreement for forced entry interpretation.

Recent advances in generative AI have shown their potential to be leveraged for legal education. Yet, work on the development and deployment of such systems for legal education in the Global South is limited. In this work, we developed Eskwai for Students, a generative AI assistant to help law students with their legal education. Eskwai for Students is a retrieval augmented generation (RAG) system that provides answers to a wide range of legal questions for law students grounded in a curated database of over 12K case laws and 1.4K legislation in Ghana. We deployed Eskwai for Students in a longitudinal study of 30 months (2.5 years) used by 3.1K law students in Ghana who made 32K queries. We evaluated the helpfulness of our AI, and provided insight into the kinds of queries law students submit to this generative AI tool, which raises some ethical concerns. This work contributes to an understanding of how law students in the Global South are using generative AI for their studies and the ways it could be leveraged responsibly to advance legal education.

Half a billion citation edges extracted from 100.7 million Ukrainian court decisions reveal that judicial citation structure encodes legal domain boundaries without supervision and predicts future legislative importance with near-perfect accuracy. We construct the first large-scale citation graph from the complete EDRSR registry (99.5 million full texts, 1.1 TB), extracting 502 million citation links across six types via regex on commodity hardware in approximately 5 hours, with precision of 1.00 on a 200-decision validation sample (95% Wilson CI: [0.982, 1.000]). Three principal findings emerge. (1) The degree distribution follows a power law (alpha = 1.57 +/- 0.008), placing the Ukrainian court network near the EU Court of Justice and below the US Supreme Court, with hub articles cited by millions of decisions. (2) Louvain community detection on the co-citation projection recovers legal domain boundaries (civil, criminal, administrative, commercial) with modularity Q = 0.44-0.55 and temporal stability (NMI = 0.83-0.86 across periods), constituting an automatically constructed legal ontology grounded in judicial practice. (3) Citation features predict top-1000 articles with AUC = 0.9984, substantially outperforming a naive frequency baseline (P@1000 = 0.655); temporal dynamics detect legislative regime changes as phase transitions and the 2022 invasion as a citation entropy spike (H: 11.02 -> 13.49) with emergent wartime legislation nodes. The citation-derived ontology is operationalized as the domain layer of a workflow memory system for LLM-assisted legal analysis, connecting to the ontology-controlled paradigm. The extraction pipeline, analysis code, and aggregated statistics are released as open data.

In the world of AI and advanced technologies investigation aspects identification of a crime or criminal plays a major problem. In this research we focus on a Conventional ways of implicating criminal investigations usually rely on limited data analysis. Finding an optimal and efficient method that will effectively identify criminals from complex datasets and minimise false positives and false negatives is the considered as a challenge. The main novelty approach of this work is based on the deep learning algorithm Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (DDPG) is presented in this paper. We train the DDPG model with a dataset of crime scene material, witness statements and suspect profiles. The algorithm uses features to maximise the likelihood of identifying the offender while minimising the noise impact and irrelevant data. We show the efficacy of the proposed method, where DDPG identified criminals with an amazing accuracy of 95% than other several existing methods.

Legal reasoning is not semantic similarity search. A court judgment encodes constrained symbolic reasoning: precedent propagation, procedural state transitions, and statute-bound inference. These are properties that vector-based retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) cannot faithfully represent. Hallucinated precedents, outdated statute citations, and unsupported reasoning chains remain persistent failure modes in LLM-based legal AI, with real consequences for access to justice in high-caseload jurisdictions such as India. This paper presents Falkor-IRAC, a graph-constrained generation framework for Indian legal AI that grounds generation in structured reasoning over an IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) knowledge graph. Judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts of India are ingested as IRAC node structures enriched with procedural state transitions, precedent relationships, and statutory references, stored in FalkorDB for low-latency agentic traversal. At inference time, LLM-generated answers are accepted only if a valid supporting path can be traced through the graph, a check performed by a falsifiability oracle called the Verifier Agent. The system also detects doctrinal conflicts as a first-class output rather than silently resolving them. Falkor-IRAC is evaluated using graph-native metrics: citation grounding accuracy, path validity rate, hallucinated precedent rate, and conflict detection rate. These metrics are argued to be more appropriate for legal reasoning evaluation than BLEU and ROUGE. On a proof-of-concept corpus of 51 Supreme Court judgments, the Verifier Agent correctly validated citations on completed queries and correctly rejected fabricated citations. Evaluation against vector-only RAG baselines is left for future work. The companion InIRAC dataset, 500+ structured Indian court judgments with IRAC annotations, is released alongside this paper.

The growing adoption of large language models in legal practice brings both significant promise and serious risk. Legal professionals stand to benefit from AI that can reason over contracts, draft documents, and analyze sources at scale, yet the high-stakes nature of legal work demands a level of rigor that current AI systems do not provide. The central problem is not simply that LLMs hallucinate facts and references; it is that they systematically draw inferences that go beyond what the source text actually supports, presenting assumption-laden conclusions as if they were logically grounded. This proposal presents a neuro-symbolic approach to legal AI that combines the expressive power of large language models with the rigor of formal verification, aiming to make AI-assisted legal reasoning both capable and trustworthy, thus reducing the burden of manual verification without sacrificing the accountability that legal practice demands.

Public-sector legal departments in the Netherlands face acute staff shortages, increased case volumes, and increased pressure to meet regulatory compliance. This paper presents LegalCheck, a novel system that addresses these challenges by automating the drafting of objection response letters through a combination of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and Context-Augmented Generation (CAG). Using a large language model (LLM) alongside curated legal knowledge bases, LegalCheck performs retrieval of relevant laws and precedents, and uses controlled prompting to incorporate both external knowledge and case-specific details into a coherent draft. An expert-in-the-loop review ensures that each generated letter is legally sound and contextually appropriate. In a real-world deployment within the Municipality of Amsterdam, LegalCheck produced near-final advice letters in minutes rather than hours, while maintaining high legal consistency and factual accuracy. The output is based on actual regulations and prior cases, providing explainable outputs that captured the vast majority of required legal reasoning (often 80% to 100% of essential content). Legal professionals found that the system reduced their workload and ensured a consistent application of legal standards, without replacing human judgment. These results demonstrate substantial efficiency gains, improved legal consistency, and positive user acceptance. More broadly, this work illustrates how responsible AI can be deployed in the legal domain by augmenting LLMs with domain knowledge and governance mechanisms.

Large language models are increasingly deployed with test-time strategies: sample $N$ responses, score them with a reward model or verifier, and return the best. This deployment rule exposes a mismatch in post-training: standard objectives optimize the mean reward of a single response, whereas best-of-$N$ performance is governed by the upper tail of the reward distribution. Recent test-time-aware objectives partly address this mismatch, but typically assume that training can use the same per-prompt rollout budget as deployment, which is impractical when post-training must cover many prompts while deployment can allocate much larger per-prompt test-time compute. We study this budget-mismatch regime, where only $m\ll N$ per-prompt rollouts are available during training but the target objective is best-of-$N$ deployment. Under structural assumptions on the reward tails, we show that the policy gradient of the best-of-$N$ objective can be approximated from a much smaller rollout group by extrapolating upper-tail statistics. This yields a family of Tail-Extrapolated estimators for best-of-$N$-oriented post-training: a simple direct estimator, Tail-Extrapolated Advantage (TEA), and a fixed-order debiased Prefix-TEA estimator based on moment cancellation. Experiments on instruction-following tasks show that TEA and Prefix-TEA improve best-of-$N$ performance across different language models, reward models and datasets under various training and test-time budget settings.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into legal drafting and research workflows, where incorrect citations or fabricated precedents can cause serious professional harm. Existing legal benchmarks largely emphasize statutory reasoning, contract understanding, or general legal question answering, but they do not directly study a central common-law failure mode: when asked to provide case authorities without external grounding, models may return plausible-looking but incorrect citations or cases. We introduce LegalCiteBench, a benchmark for studying closed-book citation recovery, citation verification, and case matching in legal language models. LegalCiteBench contains approximately 24K evaluation instances constructed from 1,000 real U.S. judicial opinions from the Case Law Access Project. The benchmark covers five citation-centric tasks: citation retrieval, citation completion, citation error detection, case matching, and case verification and correction. Across 21 LLMs, exact citation recovery remains highly challenging in this closed-book setting: even the strongest models score below 7/100 on citation retrieval and completion. Within the evaluated models, scale and legal-domain pretraining provide limited gains and do not resolve this difficulty. Models also frequently provide concrete but incorrect or low-overlap authorities under our evaluation protocol, with Misleading Answer Rates (MAR) exceeding 94% for 20 of 21 evaluated models on retrieval-heavy tasks. A prompt-only abstention experiment shows that explicit uncertainty instructions reduce some confident fabrication but do not improve citation correctness. LegalCiteBench is intended as a diagnostic framework for studying authority generation failures, verification behavior, and abstention when external grounding is absent, incomplete, or bypassed.