Legal Domain

Legal information in India remains largely inaccessible due to the complexity of legal language and the sheer volume of legal documentation involved in research and case analysis. This paper presents NyayaAI, an AI-powered legal assistant that automates and simplifies legal workflows for lawyers, law students, and general users. The system combines Large Language Models with a Retrieval-Augmented Generation pipeline grounded in a curated Indian legal knowledge base comprising constitutional provisions, statutes, case laws, and judicial precedents. A multi-agent architecture orchestrated through the Mastra TypeScript framework coordinates a main agent with specialized sub-agents handling legal research, document summarization, case law retrieval, and drafting assistance. A compliance module validates all responses before delivery. Domain classification achieved 70% precision across test samples, with RAG retrieval precision at 74% and overall response accuracy at 72%, demonstrating that structured multi-agent LLM systems can meaningfully improve legal accessibility and workflow efficiency. The code\footnote{https://github.com/B97784/NyayaAI} is made publicly available for the benefit of the research community.

Existing benchmarks for legal AI focus primarily on tasks where LLMs must produce legal arguments or documents, yet the capacity to \emph{judge} such arguments -- weighing competing claims, applying doctrine to facts, and rendering reasoned decisions -- is arguably as fundamental to a well-functioning legal system as advocacy itself. We introduce Magis-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs on magistrate-level writing tasks derived from recent Brazilian competitive examinations for judicial positions. Magis-Bench comprises 74 questions from eight examinations conducted between 2023 and 2025, including discursive legal analysis questions with multi-turn structure and practical exercises requiring the composition of complete civil and criminal judicial sentences. We evaluate 23 state-of-the-art LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge methodology with four independent frontier models as evaluators. Our results show strong inter-judge agreement (Kendall's $W = 0.984$; pairwise Kendall's $τ\ge 0.897$), with Google's Gemini-3-Pro-Preview achieving the highest average score (6.97/10), followed by Gemini-3-Flash-Preview (6.67) and Claude-4.5-Opus (6.46). Even the best-performing models score below 70% of the maximum, indicating that judicial-level legal reasoning and writing remain challenging for current LLMs. We release the complete benchmark, model outputs, and evaluation code to support further research on legal AI capabilities.

Chatbots are robots that can communicate with humans using text or voice signals. Legal chatbots improve access to justice, since legal representation and legal advice by lawyers come with a high cost that excludes disadvantaged and vulnerable people. However, capturing the diversity of actual user input in datasets for deep-learning dialog systems (chatbots) is a technical challenge. Diversity requires large volumes of data, which must also be labelled in order to classify the user's intent, while the cost of labelling datasets increases with volume. Instead of labelling large volumes of authentic data from users, our approach consists in jointly generating large volumes of utterances and high-quality labels. The generator of labelled datasets is based on language resources that take the form of local grammar graphs (LGG), which capture and generalize the vocabulary and local syntax observed by linguists in text. The LGGs associate labels to the utterances according to a domain-specific classification system. We tested this approach by implementing LIGA, a legal chatbot in Korean. The chatbot answers users' conversational queries on legal situations by providing information on similar legal cases, made publicly available by the Korean government. We generated labelled utterances from the LGGs with the aid of the open-source Unitex platform. This process produced 700 million utterances. We trained a DIET classifier on a dataset made of these utterances, and the trained model reached 91% f1-score performance. We implemented a chatbot called LIGA, which uses the results of the model to select a link to a web page that documents similar legal cases.

Trimming suspicious calibration points is a common response to contamination in conformal prediction. Its effect on clean-target coverage, however, is governed by the retained law induced by trimming, not by the contamination level alone. We analyse fixed-threshold trimming as conditioning rather than purification. It replaces the contaminated calibration law with a retained law, reducing clean-target coverage to a one-dimensional score-CDF transfer problem with an exact finite-sample identity. A componentwise bound on the transfer gap gives a population-level diagnostic. This separates a clean-side covariance cost from a retained-contamination cost, governed by the dirty-to-clean retention ratio. Trimming helps when the anomaly score separates retention probabilities while remaining score-neutral on the clean population. Otherwise, it cannot substantially reduce contamination through the retained mixture coefficient. We also give finite-sample certificate templates that provide numerical guarantees under independent audit.

This paper evaluates whether a domain trained Small Language Model (SLM) can outperform frontier Large Language Models on structured contract extraction at radically lower cost. We test Olava Extract, a self hosted legal domain Mixture of Experts model, against five frontier models. Olava Extract achieved the strongest aggregate performance in the study, with a macro F1 of 0.812 and a micro F1 of 0.842, while reducing inference cost by 78% to 97% compared with the frontier models tested. It also achieved the highest precision scores, producing fewer hallucinated and unsupported extractions, an important distinction in legal workflows where hallucinations create operational risk and downstream review burden. The findings shows that high performing, human comparable legal AI no longer requires the largest externally hosted models. More broadly, they challenge the assumption that commercially valuable enterprise AI capability must remain tied to ever larger models, massive infrastructure expenditure, and centrally hosted providers.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into legal workflows. However, existing benchmarks primarily address proxy tasks, such as bar examination performance or classification, which fail to capture the performance and risks inherent in day-to-day judicial processes. To address this, we publicly release TriBench-Ko, a Korean benchmark designed to evaluate potential deployment risks of LLMs within the context of verified judicial task requirements. It covers four core tasks: jurisprudence summarization, precedent retrieval, legal issue extraction, and evidence analysis. It jointly assesses model behavior across multiple deployment risk categories, including inaccuracy (hallucination, omission, statutory misapplication), biases (demographic, overcompliance), inconsistencies (prompt sensitivity, non-determinism), and adjudicative overreach. Each item is structured to systematically assess both task performance and a specific risk type based on real judicial decisions. Our evaluation of a range of contemporary LLMs reveals that many models frequently manifest significant risks, most notably struggling with precedent retrieval and failing to capture critical legal information. We provide a comprehensive diagnosis of these LLMs and pinpoint critical areas where LLM-generated outputs in judicial contexts necessitate rigorous inspection and caution. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/holi-lab/TriBench-Ko

Legal texts often contain computational legal clauses--provisions whose understanding requires complex logic. While frontier Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) can describe such clauses, building production-ready systems is limited by reasoning errors and the high cost of inference. We propose Amortized Intelligence, a neuro-symbolic approach where we use an LLM once to translate a legal text into Deterministic Autonomous Contract Language (DACL): a typed graph intermediate representation. Adjudication then relies on deterministic graph executions with a visually auditable trace. In comparison against runtime LRM baselines (including GPT-5.2 and Gemini 3 Pro), our DACL-based Agent achieves near-perfect consistency and mitigates the "reasoning cliff" observed in probabilistic models. The system reduces compute costs by over 90% in high-volume workflows while satisfying the strict auditability requirements of legal adjudication.

In 2011, Judea Pearl received the Turing Award, considered the Nobel Prize in Computing, for fundamental contributions to artificial intelligence through the development of a calculus for probabilistic and causal reasoning. It includes pioneering the development of causal discovery algorithms. These computer algorithms can analyze large multivariate datasets and automatically discover the causal relationships among the constituent variables. They have been widely used in many critical fields such as medicine and economics to support decisions. However, to our knowledge, they have not been leveraged in law. This paper attempts to alleviate this gap by investigating whether causal discovery algorithms can be leveraged for automated generation of legal arguments. To that end, a novel legal dataset is prepared by identifying 17 legal concepts, such as physical assault and property dispute. A curated collection of 150 homicide cases are annotated with these concepts, e.g., a case is annotated with physical assault only if a physical assault had been reported in that case. Subsequently, a selected set of widely-used causal discovery algorithms is applied to the annotated dataset to discover the causal relationships between the legal concepts. Additionally, the degrees of belief associated with the discovered relationships are quantified in mathematical probabilities. It is shown that some of the causal relationships help generate viable legal arguments, e.g., if one could establish that a physical assault has not taken place during a homicide, it should be a sufficient condition (with probability 1) to establish that the homicide has not been committed due to a property-related dispute. Thus, this paper shows that causal discovery algorithms can be helpful in generating legal arguments, opening up avenues for promising future endeavors.

Against the backdrop of rapid advances in artificial intelligence, legal argument mining has emerged as an important research area linking legal texts with intelligent analysis, carrying significant theoretical and practical implications. Existing studies have primarily developed along three dimensions: data, technology, and theory. At the data level, raw legal texts and annotated corpora constitute the foundational resources. At the technological level, research paradigms have evolved from rule-based systems and traditional machine learning to large language models (LLMs). At the theoretical level, argumentation theory and legal dogmatics provide important references for modeling argumentation structures. However, despite ongoing progress, the overall development of legal argument mining remains relatively slow. Building on a systematic review of existing research, this study conducts an in-depth analysis and finds that this is due not only to data scarcity or technical limitations, but more fundamentally to the lack of a structured representational approach that reconciles theoretical expressiveness with computational feasibility. Specifically, this challenge manifests in dilemmas in data standardization, obstacles to effective modeling, and limitations in domain adaptation. In response, the study proposes several key directions for future research. It aims to provide a reframing of key problems and a pathway for future development in legal argument mining, while leaving specific models and implementation schemes for further investigation.

Automating the drafting of judgment documents is pivotal to judicial efficiency, yet it remains challenging due to the dual requirements of comprehensive retrieval of legal information and rigorous logical reasoning. Existing approaches, typically relying on standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation and Supervised Fine-Tuning, often suffer from insufficient evidence recall, hallucinated statutory references, and logically flawed legal reasoning. To bridge this gap, we propose Judge-R1, a unified framework designed to enhance LLM-based judgment document generation by jointly improving legal information collection and judgment document generation. First, we introduce Agentic Legal Information Collection, which employs a dynamic planning agent to retrieve precise statutes and precedents from multiple sources. Second, we implement Rubric-Guided Optimization, a reinforcement learning phase utilizing Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with a comprehensive legal reward function to enforce adherence to judicial standards and reasoning logic. Extensive experiments on the JuDGE benchmark demonstrate that Judge-R1 significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in both legal accuracy and generation quality.

Legal consultation is inherently iterative: before giving advice, a system must identify relevant legal elements, gather missing facts and authorities, and determine whether the current evidence is sufficient. Existing retrieval-augmented legal agents often use fixed retrieval budgets or single-shot search, making them insensitive to the evolving coverage state of a consultation. This paper introduces a coverage-driven retrieval-control framework for multi-turn legal consultation. The framework maintains a structured map over user facts, legal elements, retrieval goals, and retrieved evidence, and uses element coverage, evidence validity coverage, and marginal retrieval gain to decide whether to retrieve, clarify, reformulate, or stop. On a 50-case synthetic Chinese labor-law consultation pilot with fixed legal-element schemas, a DeepSeek V4-Pro action-selection variant achieves full measured element coverage under the pilot metric while requiring 3.4 retrieval rounds and 7.1 evidence snippets on average. Diagnostic analyses show that model-backed action selection recovers rule-policy failure cases with a small retrieval-budget increase, while forced continuation mainly increases token and latency costs. These results suggest that legal-element coverage is a useful control signal for adaptive legal retrieval, while remaining bounded to retrieval-control behavior under synthetic fixed-schema conditions rather than deployment-level legal correctness.

The record of the beginning of the most widespread legal system in the world is contained in millions of pages of handwritten text. Most of the records of the first centuries of the Anglo-American legal system are hand-written in a highly abbreviated form of medieval Latin which only a few dozen scholars in the world are trained to read. In this interdisciplinary project, we construct a dataset of 4029 lines of text across 193 medieval criminal and civil cases. We then use the dataset to train an open-source end-to-end pipeline for transcribing these manuscripts. We first train standard neural network architectures for line segmentation and handwriting recognition (R-Blla and CNN+LSTM with CTC decoding, respectively) and show that they can already achieve 79% word accuracy, despite the relatively small training set and the challenge of expanding abbreviations. We then demonstrate that simple post-processing significantly boosts accuracy: adding an n-gram language model to the CTC decoder improves word accuracy to 82%, while asking Gemini Pro 3 to correct mistakes boosts accuracy to 88%. Finally, we compare the CNN+LSTM architecture with TrOCR, a transformer-based OCR architecture, demonstrating that TrOCR shows comparable word accuracy but worse character accuracy due to its over-willingness to guess, making it harder for humans to infer the correct reading. We incorporated our pipeline into a web portal (glyphmachina.com), opening up the English legal tradition to legal scholars, medievalists, and students.

Suspect face generation remains a technical challenge in crime investigations. Traditional sketch-drawing workflows suffer from low efficiency and quality, while diffusion-based approaches still face intrinsic limitations on conditional ambiguity for text-to-image models and sampling variance for one-shot generation. We proposed IdentiFace, a novel diffusion-based framework for identifiable suspect face generation, which addressed these issues through (1) multi-modal input design to strengthen conditional control, and (2) an iterative generation pipeline enabling identifiable feature adjustment. We additionally contributed a facial identity loss and two task-specific datasets. Comprehensive experiments on synthetic datasets and in real-world scenarios indicate that IdentiFace achieves superior performance over existing methods, especially in terms of identity retrieval, and shows strong potential for practical applications.

The rapid spread of memes makes harmful content detection increasingly crucial, as effective identification can curb the circulation of misinformation. However, existing methods rely heavily on high-volume annotated data, which leads to substantial training costs and limited generalization. To address these challenges, we propose PrismAgent, a zero-shot, multi-agent, interpretable framework. PrismAgent conceptualizes this task as a criminal case investigation, employing four specialized agents responsible for the analysis, investigation, prosecution, and judgment stages within a structured collaborative workflow. In the first stage, the analyst agent paraphrases each meme under benevolent and malicious assumptions to probe its underlying intent. The investigator agent then retrieves supporting evidence from an unannotated dataset and constructs contextual interpretations for the meme and its variants. Next, the prosecutor agent performs three independent preliminary judgments by pairing the original meme with each of the three interpretations. Finally, the judge agent deliberates across all evidence to render a final verdict. Moreover, PrismAgent's explicit multi-stage reasoning chain makes the model inherently interpretable, as every intermediate step is explicitly explained rather than only producing a final detection result. Extensive experiments on three public datasets show that PrismAgent significantly outperforms existing zero-shot detection methods.

The delivery of traditional substance education has remained problematic due to challenges in scalability, personalization, and the currency of information in a rapidly evolving substance use landscape. While artificial intelligence (AI) offers a promising frontier for enhancing educational delivery, its application in providing real-time, authoritative substance use education remains largely underexplored. We built an agentic-based AI web application that combined Drug Enforcement Administration records with peer-reviewed literature in real-time to provide transparent context-sensitive substance use education. The system uses retrieval-augmented generation with a carefully filtered corpus of 102 documents and dynamic PubMed queries. Document storage was semantically chunked and placed in a vector representation in order to be easily retrieved. We conducted an expert evaluation study in which a panel of five subject matter experts generated 30 domain-specific questions, and two independent raters assessed 90 system interactions (30 primary questions plus two contextual follow-ups each) using a five-point Likert scale across four criteria: factual accuracy, citation quality, contextual coherence, and regulatory appropriateness. Mean ratings ranged from 4.18 to 4.35 across the four criteria (overall category range: 4.05-4.52), with substantial inter-rater agreement (Cohen's kappa = 0.78). These findings suggest that agentic AI architectures integrating authoritative regulatory sources with real-time scientific literature represent a promising direction for scalable, accurate, and verifiable health education delivery, warranting further evaluation through longitudinal user studies.

In this article, we introduce ViLegalNLI, the first large-scale Vietnamese Natural Language Inference (NLI) dataset specifically constructed for the legal domain. The dataset consists of 42,012 premise-hypothesis pairs derived from official statutory documents and annotated with binary inference labels (Entailment and Non-entailment). It covers multiple legal domains and reflects realistic legal reasoning scenarios characterized by structured logic, conditional clauses, and domain-specific terminology. To construct ViLegalNLI, we propose a semi-automatic data generation framework that integrates large language models for controlled hypothesis generation and systematic quality validation procedures. The framework incorporates artifact mitigation strategies and cross-model validation to improve annotation reliability and ensure legal consistency. The resulting dataset captures diverse reasoning patterns, including paraphrasing, logical implication, and legally invalid inferences, thereby providing a comprehensive benchmark for Vietnamese legal inference tasks. We conduct extensive experiments on the ViLegalNLI using multilingual models, Vietnamese-specific pretrained language models, and instruction-tuned large language models. The results show that few-shot LLM configurations consistently achieve superior performance, while performance is significantly influenced by hypothesis length, lexical overlap, and reasoning complexity. Cross-domain evaluations further reveal the challenges of generalizing legal inference across distinct legal fields. Overall, ViLegalNLI establishes a foundational benchmark for Vietnamese legal NLI and supports future research in legal reasoning, statutory text understanding, and the development of reliable AI systems for legal analysis and decision support. The dataset is publicly available for research purposes.

Pretrial risk assessment tools are used on over one million U.S. defendants each year, yet their use for predicting rare violent re-offense faces a basic statistical barrier. We derive a universal precision bound -- the Likelihood Ratio Wall -- showing that when violent re-arrest rates are low (2-5%), achieving even a 50% hit rate among people labeled "high risk" (positive predictive value, or PPV) would require tools far more discriminative than current instruments appear to be. For rare outcomes, a tool can have respectable-looking performance metrics and still be wrong most of the time it flags someone as "high risk for violence." We show that post-hoc score recalibration cannot solve this problem because it does not improve the tool's underlying ability to separate true positives from false positives. We further prove a Surveillance Ceiling: when over-policing inflates recorded "risk factors" among those who would not re-offend, the maximum achievable precision is structurally lower for over-policed groups, even at equal offense rates. We translate these results into the Number Needed to Detain (how many people must be detained to prevent one violent offense), and propose that risk reports should communicate this uncertainty explicitly. Our findings suggest that for rare violent outcomes, debates about fairness metrics alone are incomplete: under current data regimes, the available features may not support high-confidence individualized detention decisions.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are proposed as legal decision assistants, and even first-instance decision-makers, across a range of judicial and administrative contexts, it becomes essential to explore how they answer legal questions, and in particular the factors that lead them to decide difficult questions in one way or another. A specific feature of legal decisions is the need to respond to arguments advanced by contending parties. A legal decision-maker must be able to engage with, and respond to, including through being potentially persuaded by, arguments advanced by the parties. Conversely, they should not be unduly persuadable, influenced by a particularly compelling advocate to decide cases based on the skills of the advocates, rather than the merits of the case. We explore how frontier open- and closed-weights LLMs respond to legal arguments, reporting original experimental results examining how the quality of the advocate making those arguments affects the likelihood that a model will agree with a particular legal point of view, and exploring the factors driving these results. Our results have implications for the feasibility of adopting LLMs across legal and administrative settings.

In recent years, the rapid proliferation of open-source large language models (LLMs) has spurred efforts to turn general-purpose models into domain specialists. However, many domain-specialized LLMs are developed using datasets and training protocols that are not aligned with the nuanced requirements of real-world applications. In the legal domain, where precision and reliability are essential, this lack of consideration limits practical utility. In this study, we propose a systematic training framework grounded in the practical needs of the legal domain, with a focus on Korean law. We introduce LegalMidm, a Korean legal-domain LLM, and present a methodology for constructing high-quality, use-case-driven legal datasets and optimized training pipelines. Our approach emphasizes collaboration with legal professionals and rigorous data curation to ensure relevance and factual accuracy, and demonstrates effectiveness in key legal tasks.

Small language models (SLMs) are promising for real-world deployment due to their efficiency and low operational cost. However, their limited capacity struggles with high-stakes legal reasoning tasks that require coherent statute interpretation and logically consistent deduction. Furthermore, training SLMs for such tasks demands high-quality, concise reasoning trajectories, which are prohibitively expensive to manually collect and difficult to curate via standard rejection sampling, lacking granularity beyond final verdicts. To address these challenges, we propose {LegalDrill}, a diagnosis-driven synthesis framework that extracts and iteratively refines reasoning trajectories from a capable teacher via fine-grained prompting, then a self-reflective verification is employed to adaptively select the most effective data for the SLM student. The resulting data empower SLM training through supervised fine-tuning and direct preference optimization. Extensive experiments on several legal benchmarks demonstrate that {LegalDrill} significantly bolsters the legal reasoning capabilities of representative SLMs while bypassing the need for scarce expert annotations, paving a scalable path toward practical legal reasoning systems.

The semantic gap between colloquial user queries and professional legal documents presents a fundamental challenge in Legal Case Retrieval (LCR). Existing dense retrieval methods typically treat LCR as a black-box semantic matching process, neglecting the explicit juridical logic that underpins legal relevance. To address this, we propose GLIER (Generative Legal Inference and Evidence Ranking), a framework that reformulates retrieval as an inference process over latent legal variables. GLIER decomposes the task into two interpretability-driven stages. First, a Joint Generative Inference module translates raw queries into latent legal indicators, including charges and legal elements, using a unified sequence-to-sequence strategy that jointly generates charges and elements to enforce logical consistency. Second, a Multi-View Evidence Fusion mechanism aggregates generative confidence with structural and lexical signals for precise ranking. Extensive experiments on LeCaRD and LeCaRDv2 demonstrate that GLIER outperforms strong baselines such as SAILER and KELLER. Notably, GLIER exhibits strong data efficiency, maintaining robust performance even when trained with only 10% of the data.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on legal benchmarks, including multiple-choice components of bar exams. However, their capacity for generating open-ended legal reasoning in realistic scenarios remains insufficiently explored. Notably, to our best knowledge, there are no prior studies or datasets addressing this issue in the Japanese context. This study presents the first dataset designed to evaluate the open-ended legal reasoning performance of LLMs within the Japanese jurisdiction. The dataset is based on the writing component of the Japanese bar examination, which requires examinees to identify multiple legal issues from long narratives and to construct structured legal arguments in free text format. Our key contribution is the manual evaluation of LLMs' generated responses by legal experts, which reveals limitations and challenges in legal reasoning. Moreover, we conducted a manual analysis of hallucinations to characterize when and how the models introduce content not supported by precedent or law. Our real exam questions, model-generated responses, and expert evaluations reveal the milestones of current LLMs in the Japanese legal domain. Our dataset and relevant resources will be available online.

Reconstructing 3D Human-Object Interaction from an RGB image is essential for perceptive systems. Yet, this remains challenging as it requires capturing the subtle physical coupling between the body and objects. While current methods rely on sparse, binary contact cues, these fail to model the continuous proximity and dense spatial relationships that characterize natural interactions. We address this limitation via InterFields, a representation that encodes dense, continuous proximity across the entire body and object surfaces. However, inferring these fields from single images is inherently ill-posed. To tackle this, our intuition is that interaction patterns are characteristically structured by the action and object geometry. We capture this structure in LEXIS, a novel discrete manifold of interaction signatures learned via a VQ-VAE. We then develop LEXIS-Flow, a diffusion framework that leverages LEXIS signatures to estimate human and object meshes alongside their InterFields. Notably, these InterFields help in a guided refinement that ensures physically-plausible, proximity-aware reconstructions without requiring post-hoc optimization. Evaluation on Open3DHOI and BEHAVE shows that LEXIS-Flow significantly outperforms existing SotA baselines in reconstruction, contact, and proximity quality. Our approach not only improves generalization but also yields reconstructions perceived as more realistic, moving us closer to holistic 3D scene understanding. Code & models will be public at https://anticdimi.github.io/lexis.

This work explores the role of prompt design and judge selection in LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations of free text legal question answering. We examine whether automatic task prompt optimization improves over human-centered design, whether optimization effectiveness varies by judge feedback style, and whether optimized prompts transfer across judges. We systematically address these questions on the LEXam benchmark by optimizing task prompts using the ProTeGi method with feedback from two judges (Qwen3-32B, DeepSeek-V3) across four task models, and then testing cross-judge transfer. Automatic optimization consistently outperforms the baseline, with lenient judge feedback yielding higher and more consistent gains than strict judge feedback. Prompts optimized with lenient feedback transfer better to strict judges than the reverse direction. Analysis reveals that lenient judges provide permissive feedback, yielding prompts with broader applicability, whereas strict judges produce restrictive feedback, leading to judge-specific overfitting. Our findings demonstrate algorithmically optimizing prompts on training data can outperform human-centered prompt design and that judges' dispositions during optimization shape prompt generalizability.

The importance of clear and correct text in legal documents cannot be understated, and, consequently, a grammatical error correction tool meant to assist a professional in the law must have the ability to understand the possible errors in the context of a legal environment, correcting them accordingly, and implicitly needs to be trained in the same environment, using realistic legal data. However, the manually annotated data required by such a process is in short supply for languages such as Romanian, much less for a niche domain. The most common approach is the synthetic generation of parallel data; however, it requires a structured understanding of the Romanian grammar. In this paper, we introduce, to our knowledge, the first Romanian-language parallel dataset for the detection and correction of grammatical errors in the legal domain, RoLegalGEC, which aggregates 350,000 examples of errors in legal passages, along with error annotations. Moreover, we evaluate several neural network models that transform the dataset into a valuable tool for both detecting and correcting grammatical errors, including knowledge-distillation Transformers, sequence tagging architectures for detection, and a variety of pre-trained text-to-text Transformer models for correction. We consider that the set of models, together with the novel RoLegalGEC dataset, will enrich the resource base for further research on Romanian.

More than half of the global population struggles to meet their civil justice needs due to limited legal resources. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities, significant challenges remain even at the foundational step of legal issue identification. To investigate LLMs' capabilities in this task, we constructed a dataset from 769 real-world Malaysian Contract Act court cases, using GPT-4o to extract facts and generate candidate legal issues, annotated by senior legal experts, which reveals a critical limitation: while LLMs generate diverse issue candidates, their precision remains inadequate (GPT-4o achieves only 62%). To address this gap, we propose LePREC (Legal Professional-inspired Reasoning Elicitation and Classification), a neuro-symbolic framework combining neural generation with structured statistical reasoning. LePREC consists of: (1) a neuro component leverages LLMs to transform legal descriptions into question-answer pairs representing diverse analytical factors, and (2) a symbolic component applies sparse linear models over these discrete features, learning explicit algebraic weights that identify the most informative reasoning factors. Unlike end-to-end neural approaches, LePREC achieves interpretability through transparent feature weighting while maintaining data efficiency through correlation-based statistical classification. Experiments show a 30-40% improvement over advanced LLM baselines, including GPT-4o and Claude, confirming that correlation-based factor-issue analysis offers a more data-efficient solution for relevance decisions.

Legal domains in high-resource languages like English have widely adopted artificial intelligence for legal question answering. However, data scarcity in low resource languages such as Nepali has limited the training of large language models on Nepali legal texts. This study presents the first application of a Retrieval Augmented Generation based model for Nepali legal question answering using case laws extracted from the Nepal Kanun Patrika digital archive. Using BM25 on chunked documents, the approach achieved a top precision at one of 91 percent, and up to 75 percent with the multilingual E5 large model. Evaluation of generated answers showed 74 percent groundedness, 85 percent truthfulness according to an automated judge model, and 84 percent human evaluated truthfulness when using BM25 document retrieval, with a 92 percent successful answer generation rate. These results demonstrate that the RAG pipeline can effectively address the gap in legal question answering for low resource languages and provide a foundation for reliable AI systems in the Nepali legal domain.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in general-domain tasks, yet their direct application to the legal domain remains challenging due to hallucinated legal citations, incomplete knowledge coverage, and weak structured reasoning. To address these issues, we propose PoliLegalLM, a domain-specific large language model tailored for political and legal applications. Our approach adopts a unified training framework that integrates continued pretraining, progressive supervised fine-tuning, and preference-based reinforcement learning to jointly enhance legal knowledge grounding, task alignment, and reasoning capability. We construct a large-scale, high-quality legal corpus and design a structured post-training pipeline, enabling the model to effectively learn domain-specific knowledge and adapt to diverse legal tasks. We evaluate PoliLegalLM on three representative benchmarks, including LawBench, LexEval, and a real-world dataset, PoliLegal. Experimental results demonstrate that PoliLegalLM achieves strong and consistent performance, outperforming competitive models of similar scale and remaining highly competitive with significantly larger models, while achieving the best results on real-world legal scenarios. These results highlight the effectiveness of our training paradigm and the practical value of domain-specific LLMs for real-world legal applications.

Transforming legal text into executable decision logic is a longstanding challenge in legal informatics. With the rise of LLMs, this task has gained renewed interest, but remains challenging due to requiring extensive manual coding and evaluation. We use a unique real-world dataset that pairs production-grade decision models with legal text from the Dutch Environment and Planning Act. These models power the Omgevingsloket government platform, where citizens check permit requirements for environmental activities. We study whether intermediate structured representations can improve LLM-based generation of executable decision models from legal text. We compare four input conditions: raw legal text, text enriched with semantic role labels, text enriched with input and output constraints, and text enriched with both. We evaluate along two dimensions: structural evaluation, through similarity to gold decision models with graph kernels and graphs' descriptive statistics, and outcome evaluation, through functional equivalence by executing models on pre-configured test scenarios. Our findings show that I/O constraints provide the dominant improvement (+37-54% similarity over baseline), while semantic role labels show modest improvements. Outcome evaluation shows that generated models match the gold standard on 51-53% of test scenarios, even though generated models are typically smaller and simpler. We find LLMs eliminate redundant pass-through logic that comprises up to 45-55% of nodes. Importantly, structural similarity and outcome equivalence are complementary: structural similarity does not guarantee outcome equivalence, and vice versa. To facilitate reproducibility, we publicly release our dataset of 95 production decision models with associated legal text and all experimental code.

The complexity of Vietnam's legal texts presents a significant barrier to public access to justice. While Large Language Models offer a promising solution for legal text simplification, evaluating their true capabilities requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond surface-level metrics. This paper introduces a comprehensive dual-aspect evaluation framework to address this need. First, we establish a performance benchmark for four state-of-the-art large language models (GPT-4o, Claude 3 Opus, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Grok-1) across three key dimensions: Accuracy, Readability, and Consistency. Second, to understand the "why" behind these performance scores, we conduct a large-scale error analysis on a curated dataset of 60 complex Vietnamese legal articles, using a novel, expert-validated error typology. Our results reveal a crucial trade-off: models like Grok-1 excel in Readability and Consistency but compromise on fine-grained legal Accuracy, while models like Claude 3 Opus achieve high Accuracy scores that mask a significant number of subtle but critical reasoning errors. The error analysis pinpoints \textit{Incorrect Example} and \textit{Misinterpretation} as the most prevalent failures, confirming that the primary challenge for current LLMs is not summarization but controlled, accurate legal reasoning. By integrating a quantitative benchmark with a qualitative deep dive, our work provides a holistic and actionable assessment of LLMs for legal applications.

We study the overall process of automatic formalization of GDPR provisions using large language models, within a human-in-the-loop verification framework. Rather than aiming for full autonomy, we adopt a role-specialized workflow in which LLM-based AI components, operating in a multi-agent setting with iterative feedback, generate legal scenarios, formal rules, and atomic facts. This is coupled with independent verification modules which include human reviewers' assessment of representational, logical, and legal correctness. Using this approach, we construct a high-quality dataset to be used for GDPR auto-formalization, and analyze both successful and problematic cases. Our results show that structured verification and targeted human oversight are essential for reliable legal formalization, especially in the presence of legal nuance and context-sensitive reasoning.

Applying computational methods to law at scale requires separating genuine legal reasoning from surface similarity. We study this through a concrete task: detecting implicit citations of the French Civil Code, where a court applies a statutory rule without naming it: a post-hoc question about the reasoning a court actually used. We release a benchmark of 1,015 passage-article pairs annotated by three legal experts. Our central finding is that their disagreement is itself informative: the third of cases the experts dispute are where models fail. Our best ensemble reaches an F1 score of 0.70 overall. Yet, two-thirds of its false positives fall on those disputed cases, a concentration that holds across all ten models we evaluate. Disagreement is a signal of intrinsic difficulty, not annotation noise. This should not block useful tools, however: reframed as top-$k$ ranking with multi-model consensus, the same signals reach 76% precision for the top-200 candidates without supervision.

The extraction of critical information from crime-related documents is a crucial task for law enforcement agencies. The extraction of this information can be interpreted as a Named-Entity Recognition (NER) task. However, there is a considerable lack of adequately annotated data on general real-world crime scenarios. To address this issue, we present CrimeNER, a case study of crime-related NER, and a general crime-related Named-Entity Recognition database (CrimeNER-db), consisting of more than 1.5K annotated documents extracted from public reports of terrorist attacks and the US Department of Justice's press notes. We define 4 coarse types of crime entity and 21 fine-grained entity types. We address the quality of the presented database with experiments using fully supervised finetuned general NER models and zero- and few-shot experiments to address the generalization capabilities. The database is available on GitHub.

Large language models (LLMs) now support contexts of up to 1M tokens, but their strengths and weaknesses on complex long-context tasks remain unclear. To study this, we focus on multi-document legal case summarization, where a single case often spans many documents exceeding 100K tokens. We systematically evaluate 12 frontier LLMs with Gavel, which consists of Gavel-Ref, a reference-based evaluation framework with checklist, residual-fact, and writing-style evaluations, and Gavel-Agent, a reference-free agent for evaluating factual coverage directly from source documents. Our results show that current models are more prone to omitting key information than hallucinating. They all perform well on simple checklist items, such as filing date, but struggle with rare and complex items, such as settlements. Performance also declines as case length increases. To meta-evaluate Gavel, we collect 160 hours of human annotations. Gavel-Agent reduces token usage by at least 36% compared to end-to-end and chunk-by-chunk methods while achieving competitive performance. Gavel-Agent also generalizes to the medical domain, performing the best with at least 77% fewer tokens.

Large language models are increasingly deployed for legal question answering, where evaluations typically focus on multiple-choice accuracy. This measure overlooks a common failure: whether the citation source attached to an answer exists and supports the rule the system attributes to it. We present L-MARS, an open multi-agent legal QA system with agentic search and judge-driven evidence checks, and audit it claim by claim against its cited source. Each atomic claim is labelled with a six-class taxonomy and scored with strict-ALCE under cross-provider judging, where the answerer and verifier come from different model families. On a stratified 100-question Bar Exam audit, retrieval barely moves accuracy, yet the multi-turn judge loop lifts strict citation F1 from 0.13 (naive RAG) to 0.25 and cuts the no-citation rate from 34% to 13%. We further introduce Faith-Search, a post-draft step that re-verifies and repairs unreachable citations; it drops the unreachable rate below 1% but does not improve F1 over the multi-turn loop, so we report it as a targeted reachability intervention rather than a faithfulness breakthrough. A 50-question LegalSearchQA case study confirms the picture: retrieve-then-draft pipelines saturate near 0.75 citation F1, while a single-agent web-search baseline collapses to 0.22 under external audit.

The EU has become one of the vanguards in regulating the digital age. A particularly important regulation in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) domain is the 2024 enacted EU AI Act. The AI Act specifies -- due to a risk-based approach -- various obligations for providers of AI systems. These obligations, for example, include a cascade of documentation and compliance measures, which represent a potential obstacle to science. But do these obligations also apply to AI researchers? This position paper argues that, indeed, the AI Act's obligations could apply in many more cases than the AI community is aware of. Moreover, we argue that the AI Act is drafted in a manner that may unwillingly disrupt the scientific publication practices of the AI research community, with a focus on model and system release. We contribute the following: 1. We offer a high-level roadmap for AI researchers to evaluate whether they need to comply with the AI Act 2. We explain with everyday research examples why the AI Act applies to AI research. 3. We analyse the exceptions of the AI Act's applicability AI research and offer visual tool for researchers to navigate the AI Act's complex system or research exceptions 4. We establish a position the AI Act's research exceptions fail to account for current AI research conventions, as publishing AI research may void the research exceptions of the Act. 5. We propose changes to the AI Act to provide more legal certainty for AI researchers and give two recommendations for AI researchers to reduce the risk of not complying with the AI Act. We see our paper as a starting point for a discussion between policymakers, legal scholars, and AI researchers to avoid unintended side effects of the AI Act.

Natural Language Processing (NLP) has transformed various fields beyond linguistics by applying techniques originally developed for human language to the analysis of biological sequences. This review explores the application of NLP methods to biological sequence data, focusing on genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics. We examine how various NLP methods, from classic approaches like word2vec to advanced models employing transformers and hyena operators, are being adapted to analyze DNA, RNA, protein sequences, and entire genomes. The review also examines tokenization strategies and model architectures, evaluating their strengths, limitations, and suitability for different biological tasks. We further cover recent advances in NLP applications for biological data, such as structure prediction, gene expression, and evolutionary analysis, highlighting the potential of these methods for extracting meaningful insights from large-scale genomic data. As language models continue to advance, their integration into bioinformatics holds immense promise for advancing our understanding of biological processes in all domains of life.

This paper proposes a novel interdisciplinary framework for analyzing police body-worn camera (BWC) footage from the Rochester Police Department (RPD) using advanced artificial intelligence (AI) and statistical machine learning (ML) techniques. Our goal is to detect, classify, and analyze patterns of interaction between police officers and civilians to identify key behavioral dynamics, such as respect, disrespect, escalation, and de-escalation. We apply multimodal data analysis by integrating image, audio, and natural language processing (NLP) techniques to extract meaningful insights from BWC footage. The framework incorporates speaker separation, transcription, and large language models (LLMs) to produce structured, interpretable summaries of police-civilian encounters. We also employ a custom evaluation pipeline to assess transcription quality and behavior detection accuracy in high-stakes, real-world policing scenarios. Our methodology, computational techniques, and findings outline a practical approach for law enforcement review, training, and accountability processes while advancing the frontiers of knowledge discovery from complex police BWC data.

Large language models (LLMs) have transformed many fields, including natural language processing, computer vision, and reinforcement learning. These models have also made a significant impact in the field of law, where they are being increasingly utilized to automate various legal tasks, such as legal judgement prediction, legal document analysis, and legal document writing. However, the integration of LLMs into the legal field has also raised several legal problems, including privacy concerns, bias, and explainability. In this survey, we explore the integration of LLMs into the field of law. We discuss the various applications of LLMs in legal tasks, examine the legal challenges that arise from their use, and explore the data resources that can be used to specialize LLMs in the legal domain. Finally, we discuss several promising directions and conclude this paper. By doing so, we hope to provide an overview of the current state of LLMs in law and highlight the potential benefits and challenges of their integration.