Daily Papers

Strategic interaction in adversarial domains such as law, diplomacy, and negotiation is mediated by language, yet most game-theoretic models abstract away the mechanisms of persuasion that operate through discourse. We present the Strategic Courtroom Framework, a multi-agent simulation environment in which prosecution and defense teams composed of trait-conditioned Large Language Model (LLM) agents engage in iterative, round-based legal argumentation. Agents are instantiated using nine interpretable traits organized into four archetypes, enabling systematic control over rhetorical style and strategic orientation. We evaluate the framework across 10 synthetic legal cases and 84 three-trait team configurations, totaling over 7{,}000 simulated trials using DeepSeek-R1 and Gemini~2.5~Pro. Our results show that heterogeneous teams with complementary traits consistently outperform homogeneous configurations, that moderate interaction depth yields more stable verdicts, and that certain traits (notably quantitative and charismatic) contribute disproportionately to persuasive success. We further introduce a reinforcement-learning-based Trait Orchestrator that dynamically generates defense traits conditioned on the case and opposing team, discovering strategies that outperform static, human-designed trait combinations. Together, these findings demonstrate how language can be treated as a first-class strategic action space and provide a foundation for building autonomous agents capable of adaptive persuasion in multi-agent environments.

Identifying, classifying, and analyzing arguments in legal discourse has been a prominent area of research since the inception of the argument mining field. However, there has been a major discrepancy between the way natural language processing (NLP) researchers model and annotate arguments in court decisions and the way legal experts understand and analyze legal argumentation. While computational approaches typically simplify arguments into generic premises and claims, arguments in legal research usually exhibit a rich typology that is important for gaining insights into the particular case and applications of law in general. We address this problem and make several substantial contributions to move the field forward. First, we design a new annotation scheme for legal arguments in proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that is deeply rooted in the theory and practice of legal argumentation research. Second, we compile and annotate a large corpus of 373 court decisions (2.3M tokens and 15k annotated argument spans). Finally, we train an argument mining model that outperforms state-of-the-art models in the legal NLP domain and provide a thorough expert-based evaluation. All datasets and source codes are available under open lincenses at https://github.com/trusthlt/mining-legal-arguments.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong general reasoning and language understanding, yet their performance degrades in domains governed by strict formal rules, precise terminology, and legally binding structure. Tax law exemplifies these challenges, as correct answers require exact statutory citation, structured legal argumentation, and numerical accuracy under rigid grading schemes. We algorithmically generate SteuerEx, the first open benchmark derived from authentic German university tax law examinations. SteuerEx comprises 115 expert-validated examination questions spanning six core tax law domains and multiple academic levels, and employs a statement-level, partial-credit evaluation framework that closely mirrors real examination practice. We further present SteuerLLM, a domain-adapted LLM for German tax law trained on a large-scale synthetic dataset generated from authentic examination material using a controlled retrieval-augmented pipeline. SteuerLLM (28B parameters) consistently outperforms general-purpose instruction-tuned models of comparable size and, in several cases, substantially larger systems, demonstrating that domain-specific data and architectural adaptation are more decisive than parameter scale for performance on realistic legal reasoning tasks. All benchmark data, training datasets, model weights, and evaluation code are released openly to support reproducible research in domain-specific legal artificial intelligence. A web-based demo of SteuerLLM is available at https://steuerllm.i5.ai.fau.de.

The use of BERT, one of the most popular language models, has led to improvements in many Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. One such task is Named Entity Recognition (NER) i.e. automatic identification of named entities such as location, person, organization, etc. from a given text. It is also an important base step for many NLP tasks such as information extraction and argumentation mining. Even though there is much research done on NER using BERT and other popular language models, the same is not explored in detail when it comes to Legal NLP or Legal Tech. Legal NLP applies various NLP techniques such as sentence similarity or NER specifically on legal data. There are only a handful of models for NER tasks using BERT language models, however, none of these are aimed at legal documents in German. In this paper, we fine-tune a popular BERT language model trained on German data (German BERT) on a Legal Entity Recognition (LER) dataset. To make sure our model is not overfitting, we performed a stratified 10-fold cross-validation. The results we achieve by fine-tuning German BERT on the LER dataset outperform the BiLSTM-CRF+ model used by the authors of the same LER dataset. Finally, we make the model openly available via HuggingFace.

This paper introduces Knowledge Representation Augmented Generation (KRAG), a novel framework designed to enhance the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) within domain-specific applications. KRAG points to the strategic inclusion of critical knowledge entities and relationships that are typically absent in standard data sets and which LLMs do not inherently learn. In the context of legal applications, we present Soft PROLEG, an implementation model under KRAG, which uses inference graphs to aid LLMs in delivering structured legal reasoning, argumentation, and explanations tailored to user inquiries. The integration of KRAG, either as a standalone framework or in tandem with retrieval augmented generation (RAG), markedly improves the ability of language models to navigate and solve the intricate challenges posed by legal texts and terminologies. This paper details KRAG's methodology, its implementation through Soft PROLEG, and potential broader applications, underscoring its significant role in advancing natural language understanding and processing in specialized knowledge domains.

We present Legal Argument Reasoning (LAR), a novel task designed to evaluate the legal reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). The task requires selecting the correct next statement (from multiple choice options) in a chain of legal arguments from court proceedings, given the facts of the case. We constructed a dataset (LAR-ECHR) for this task using cases from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). We evaluated seven general-purpose LLMs on LAR-ECHR and found that (a) the ranking of the models is aligned with that of LegalBench, an established US-based legal reasoning benchmark, even though LAR-ECHR is based on EU law, (b) LAR-ECHR distinguishes top models more clearly, compared to LegalBench, (c) even the best model (GPT-4o) obtains 75.8% accuracy on LAR-ECHR, indicating significant potential for further model improvement. The process followed to construct LAR-ECHR can be replicated with cases from other legal systems.

Courts must justify their decisions, but systematically analyzing judicial reasoning at scale remains difficult. This study tests claims about formalistic judging in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) by developing automated methods to detect and classify judicial reasoning in decisions of Czech Supreme Courts using state-of-the-art natural language processing methods. We create the MADON dataset of 272 decisions from two Czech Supreme Courts with expert annotations of 9,183 paragraphs with eight argument types and holistic formalism labels for supervised training and evaluation. Using a corpus of 300,511 Czech court decisions, we adapt transformer LLMs to Czech legal domain through continued pretraining and we experiment with methods to address dataset imbalance including asymmetric loss and class weighting. The best models can detect argumentative paragraphs (82.6% Bal-F1), classify traditional types of legal argument (77.5% Bal-F1), and classify decisions as formalistic/non-formalistic (83.8% Bal-F1). Our three-stage pipeline combining ModernBERT, Llama 3.1, and traditional feature-based machine learning achieves promising results for decision classification while reducing computational costs and increasing explainability. Empirically, we challenge prevailing narratives about CEE formalism. We demonstrate that legal argument mining enables promising judicial philosophy classification and highlight its potential for other important tasks in computational legal studies. Our methodology can be used across jurisdictions, and our entire pipeline, datasets, guidelines, models, and source codes are available at https://github.com/trusthlt/madon.

Laws and their interpretations, legal arguments and agreements\ are typically expressed in writing, leading to the production of vast corpora of legal text. Their analysis, which is at the center of legal practice, becomes increasingly elaborate as these collections grow in size. Natural language understanding (NLU) technologies can be a valuable tool to support legal practitioners in these endeavors. Their usefulness, however, largely depends on whether current state-of-the-art models can generalize across various tasks in the legal domain. To answer this currently open question, we introduce the Legal General Language Understanding Evaluation (LexGLUE) benchmark, a collection of datasets for evaluating model performance across a diverse set of legal NLU tasks in a standardized way. We also provide an evaluation and analysis of several generic and legal-oriented models demonstrating that the latter consistently offer performance improvements across multiple tasks.

Arguments, counter-arguments, facts, and evidence obtained via documents related to previous court cases are of essential need for legal professionals. Therefore, the process of automatic information extraction from documents containing legal opinions related to court cases can be considered to be of significant importance. This study is focused on the identification of sentences in legal opinion texts which convey different perspectives on a certain topic or entity. We combined several approaches based on semantic analysis, open information extraction, and sentiment analysis to achieve our objective. Then, our methodology was evaluated with the help of human judges. The outcomes of the evaluation demonstrate that our system is successful in detecting situations where two sentences deliver different opinions on the same topic or entity. The proposed methodology can be used to facilitate other information extraction tasks related to the legal domain. One such task is the automated detection of counter arguments for a given argument. Another is the identification of opponent parties in a court case.

Legal Artificial Intelligence (LegalAI) has achieved notable advances in automating judicial decision-making with the support of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, existing legal LLMs still struggle to generate reliable and interpretable reasoning processes. They often default to fast-thinking behavior by producing direct answers without explicit multi-step reasoning, limiting their effectiveness in complex legal scenarios that demand rigorous justification. To address this challenge, we propose LegalΔ, a reinforcement learning framework designed to enhance legal reasoning through chain-of-thought guided information gain. During training, LegalΔ employs a dual-mode input setup-comprising direct answer and reasoning-augmented modes-and maximizes the information gain between them. This encourages the model to acquire meaningful reasoning patterns rather than generating superficial or redundant explanations. LegalΔ follows a two-stage approach: (1) distilling latent reasoning capabilities from a powerful Large Reasoning Model (LRM), DeepSeek-R1, and (2) refining reasoning quality via differential comparisons, combined with a multidimensional reward mechanism that assesses both structural coherence and legal-domain specificity. Experimental results on multiple legal reasoning tasks demonstrate that LegalΔ outperforms strong baselines in both accuracy and interpretability. It consistently produces more robust and trustworthy legal judgments without relying on labeled preference data. All code and data will be released at https://github.com/NEUIR/LegalDelta.

The advent of large language models (LLMs) and their adoption by the legal community has given rise to the question: what types of legal reasoning can LLMs perform? To enable greater study of this question, we present LegalBench: a collaboratively constructed legal reasoning benchmark consisting of 162 tasks covering six different types of legal reasoning. LegalBench was built through an interdisciplinary process, in which we collected tasks designed and hand-crafted by legal professionals. Because these subject matter experts took a leading role in construction, tasks either measure legal reasoning capabilities that are practically useful, or measure reasoning skills that lawyers find interesting. To enable cross-disciplinary conversations about LLMs in the law, we additionally show how popular legal frameworks for describing legal reasoning -- which distinguish between its many forms -- correspond to LegalBench tasks, thus giving lawyers and LLM developers a common vocabulary. This paper describes LegalBench, presents an empirical evaluation of 20 open-source and commercial LLMs, and illustrates the types of research explorations LegalBench enables.

This paper presents our submission to the SemEval 2024 Task 5: The Legal Argument Reasoning Task in Civil Procedure. We present two approaches to solving the task of legal answer validation, given an introduction to the case, a question and an answer candidate. Firstly, we fine-tuned pre-trained BERT-based models and found that models trained on domain knowledge perform better. Secondly, we performed few-shot prompting on GPT models and found that reformulating the answer validation task to be a multiple-choice QA task remarkably improves the performance of the model. Our best submission is a BERT-based model that achieved the 7th place out of 20.

In medicine, claims remain valid when supported by empirical evidence grounded in stable biological reality. In law, by contrast, truth is contingent, defined by jurisdiction, temporal validity, and the hierarchy of authoritative sources. The recent success of large language models (LLMs) on medical licensing examinations has encouraged an expectation of comparable legal competence. This analogy, however, obscures a critical distinction between domains. Unlike in medicine, legal performance often depends less on inference than on determining when external authority is applicable, valid, and non-contradictory. We introduce a comparative diagnostic framework evaluating legal reasoning against medical baselines along four axes (knowledge recall, grounding, confidence, and robustness), uncovering a sharp domain asymmetry when applied to a new benchmark that encodes temporal validity and normative relationships. While medical LLMs reliably benefit from verified sources, legal LLMs struggle to assess when retrieved citations are useful or misleading, exhibiting overconfidence in perturbed contexts and sensitivity to superficial formatting cues. Increased model scale amplifies this tendency, revealing that stronger instruction following can coincide with weaker resistance to authoritative perturbations. These findings show that LLMs treat law as unstructured text rather than binding precedent, while revealing a tendency to over-trust authoritative but false information when external references conflict with a model's internal knowledge.

Reasoning abilities of LLMs have been a key focus in recent years. One challenging reasoning domain with interesting nuances is legal reasoning, which requires careful application of rules, and precedents while balancing deductive and analogical reasoning, and conflicts between rules. Although there have been a few works on using LLMs for legal reasoning, their focus has been on overall accuracy. In this paper, we dig deeper to do a step-by-step analysis and figure out where they commit errors. We use the college-level Multiple Choice Question-Answering (MCQA) task from the Civil Procedure dataset and propose a new error taxonomy derived from initial manual analysis of reasoning chains with respect to several LLMs, including two objective measures: soundness and correctness scores. We then develop an LLM-based automated evaluation framework to identify reasoning errors and evaluate the performance of LLMs. The computation of soundness and correctness on the dataset using the auto-evaluator framework reveals several interesting insights. Furthermore, we show that incorporating the error taxonomy as feedback in popular prompting techniques marginally increases LLM performance. Our work will also serve as an evaluation framework that can be used in detailed error analysis of reasoning chains for logic-intensive complex tasks.

An important skill in critical thinking and argumentation is the ability to spot and recognize fallacies. Fallacious arguments, omnipresent in argumentative discourse, can be deceptive, manipulative, or simply leading to `wrong moves' in a discussion. Despite their importance, argumentation scholars and NLP researchers with focus on argumentation quality have not yet investigated fallacies empirically. The nonexistence of resources dealing with fallacious argumentation calls for scalable approaches to data acquisition and annotation, for which the serious games methodology offers an appealing, yet unexplored, alternative. We present Argotario, a serious game that deals with fallacies in everyday argumentation. Argotario is a multilingual, open-source, platform-independent application with strong educational aspects, accessible at www.argotario.net.

We examine how well the state-of-the-art (SOTA) models used in legal reasoning support abductive reasoning tasks. Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference in which a hypothesis is formulated from a set of observations, and that hypothesis is used to explain the observations. The ability to formulate such hypotheses is important for lawyers and legal scholars as it helps them articulate logical arguments, interpret laws, and develop legal theories. Our motivation is to consider the belief that deep learning models, especially large language models (LLMs), will soon replace lawyers because they perform well on tasks related to legal text processing. But to do so, we believe, requires some form of abductive hypothesis formation. In other words, while LLMs become more popular and powerful, we want to investigate their capacity for abductive reasoning. To pursue this goal, we start by building a logic-augmented dataset for abductive reasoning with 498,697 samples and then use it to evaluate the performance of a SOTA model in the legal field. Our experimental results show that although these models can perform well on tasks related to some aspects of legal text processing, they still fall short in supporting abductive reasoning tasks.

Evaluating the quality of LLM-generated reasoning traces in expert domains (e.g., law) is essential for ensuring credibility and explainability, yet remains challenging due to the inherent complexity of such reasoning tasks. We introduce LEGIT (LEGal Issue Trees), a novel large-scale (24K instances) expert-level legal reasoning dataset with an emphasis on reasoning trace evaluation. We convert court judgments into hierarchical trees of opposing parties' arguments and the court's conclusions, which serve as rubrics for evaluating the issue coverage and correctness of the reasoning traces. We verify the reliability of these rubrics via human expert annotations and comparison with coarse, less informative rubrics. Using the LEGIT dataset, we show that (1) LLMs' legal reasoning ability is seriously affected by both legal issue coverage and correctness, and that (2) retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and RL with rubrics bring complementary benefits for legal reasoning abilities, where RAG improves overall reasoning capability, whereas RL improves correctness albeit with reduced coverage.

In common law jurisdictions, legal practitioners rely on precedents to construct arguments, in line with the doctrine of stare decisis. As the number of cases grow over the years, prior case retrieval (PCR) has garnered significant attention. Besides lacking real-world scale, existing PCR datasets do not simulate a realistic setting, because their queries use complete case documents while only masking references to prior cases. The query is thereby exposed to legal reasoning not yet available when constructing an argument for an undecided case as well as spurious patterns left behind by citation masks, potentially short-circuiting a comprehensive understanding of case facts and legal principles. To address these limitations, we introduce a PCR dataset based on judgements from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which explicitly separate facts from arguments and exhibit precedential practices, aiding us to develop this PCR dataset to foster systems' comprehensive understanding. We benchmark different lexical and dense retrieval approaches with various negative sampling strategies, adapting them to deal with long text sequences using hierarchical variants. We found that difficulty-based negative sampling strategies were not effective for the PCR task, highlighting the need for investigation into domain-specific difficulty criteria. Furthermore, we observe performance of the dense models degrade with time and calls for further research into temporal adaptation of retrieval models. Additionally, we assess the influence of different views , Halsbury's and Goodhart's, in practice in ECtHR jurisdiction using PCR task.

Large language models (LLMs), both proprietary and open-source, have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various natural language processing tasks. However, they face significant limitations in legal reasoning tasks. Proprietary models introduce data privacy risks and high inference costs, while open-source models underperform due to insufficient legal domain training data. To address these limitations, we study data generation for legal reasoning to improve the legal reasoning performance of open-source LLMs with the help of proprietary LLMs. This is challenging due to the lack of legal knowledge in proprietary LLMs and the difficulty in verifying the generated data. We propose KgDG, a knowledge-guided data generation framework for legal reasoning. Our framework enables leveraging legal knowledge to enhance generation diversity and introduces a refinement and verification process to ensure the quality of generated data. Moreover, we expand the generated dataset to further enhance the LLM reasoning capabilities. Using KgDG, we create a synthetic legal reasoning dataset containing 50K high-quality examples. Our trained model LawGPT outperforms existing legal-specific LLMs and achieves performance comparable to proprietary LLMs, demonstrating the effectiveness of KgDG and LawGPT. Our code and resources is publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/KgDG-45F5 .

Studies have underscored how, regardless of the recent breakthrough and swift advances in AI research, even state-of-the-art Large Language models (LLMs) continue to struggle when performing logical and mathematical reasoning. The results seem to suggest that LLMs still work as (highly advanced) data pattern identifiers, scoring poorly when attempting to generalise and solve reasoning problems the models have never previously seen or that are not close to samples presented in their training data. To address this compelling concern, this paper makes use of the notion of critical questions from the literature on argumentation theory, focusing in particular on Toulmin's model of argumentation. We show that employing these critical questions can improve the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. By probing the rationale behind the models' reasoning process, the LLM can assess whether some logical mistake is occurring and correct it before providing the final reply to the user prompt. The underlying idea is drawn from the gold standard of any valid argumentative procedure: the conclusion is valid if it is entailed by accepted premises. Or, to paraphrase such Aristotelian principle in a real-world approximation, characterised by incomplete information and presumptive logic, the conclusion is valid if not proved otherwise. This approach successfully steers the models' output through a reasoning pipeline, resulting in better performance against the baseline and its Chain-of-Thought (CoT) implementation. To this end, an extensive evaluation of the proposed approach on the MT-Bench Reasoning and Math tasks across a range of LLMs is provided.

We propose DISC-LawLLM, an intelligent legal system utilizing large language models (LLMs) to provide a wide range of legal services. We adopt legal syllogism prompting strategies to construct supervised fine-tuning datasets in the Chinese Judicial domain and fine-tune LLMs with legal reasoning capability. We augment LLMs with a retrieval module to enhance models' ability to access and utilize external legal knowledge. A comprehensive legal benchmark, DISC-Law-Eval, is presented to evaluate intelligent legal systems from both objective and subjective dimensions. Quantitative and qualitative results on DISC-Law-Eval demonstrate the effectiveness of our system in serving various users across diverse legal scenarios. The detailed resources are available at https://github.com/FudanDISC/DISC-LawLLM.

In oral arguments, judges probe attorneys with questions about the factual record, legal claims, and the strength of their arguments. To prepare for this questioning, both law schools and practicing attorneys rely on moot courts: practice simulations of appellate hearings. Leveraging a dataset of U.S. Supreme Court oral argument transcripts, we examine whether AI models can effectively simulate justice-specific questioning for moot court-style training. Evaluating oral argument simulation is challenging because there is no single correct question for any given turn. Instead, effective questioning should reflect a combination of desirable qualities, such as anticipating substantive legal issues, detecting logical weaknesses, and maintaining an appropriately adversarial tone. We introduce a two-layer evaluation framework that assesses both the realism and pedagogical usefulness of simulated questions using complementary proxy metrics. We construct and evaluate both prompt-based and agentic oral argument simulators. We find that simulated questions are often perceived as realistic by human annotators and achieve high recall of ground truth substantive legal issues. However, models still face substantial shortcomings, including low diversity in question types and sycophancy. Importantly, these shortcomings would remain undetected under naive evaluation approaches.

This article reports the results of a study examining the ability of legal and non-legal Large Language Models to perform legal analysis using the Issue-Rule-Application-Conclusion framework. LLMs were tested on legal reasoning tasks involving rule analysis and analogical reasoning. The results show that LLMs can conduct basic IRAC analysis, but are limited by brief responses lacking detail, an inability to commit to answers, false confidence, and hallucinations. The study compares legal and nonlegal LLMs, identifies shortcomings, and explores traits that may hinder their ability to think like a lawyer. It also discusses the implications for legal education and practice, highlighting the need for critical thinking skills in future lawyers and the potential pitfalls of overreliance on artificial intelligence AI resulting in a loss of logic, reasoning, and critical thinking skills.

This paper investigates the role of dynamic external knowledge integration in improving counter-argument generation using Large Language Models (LLMs). While LLMs have shown promise in argumentative tasks, their tendency to generate lengthy, potentially unfactual responses highlights the need for more controlled and evidence-based approaches. We introduce a new manually curated dataset of argument and counter-argument pairs specifically designed to balance argumentative complexity with evaluative feasibility. We also propose a new LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation methodology that shows a stronger correlation with human judgments compared to traditional reference-based metrics. Our experimental results demonstrate that integrating dynamic external knowledge from the web significantly improves the quality of generated counter-arguments, particularly in terms of relatedness, persuasiveness, and factuality. The findings suggest that combining LLMs with real-time external knowledge retrieval offers a promising direction for developing more effective and reliable counter-argumentation systems.

Can foundation models be guided to execute tasks involving legal reasoning? We believe that building a benchmark to answer this question will require sustained collaborative efforts between the computer science and legal communities. To that end, this short paper serves three purposes. First, we describe how IRAC-a framework legal scholars use to distinguish different types of legal reasoning-can guide the construction of a Foundation Model oriented benchmark. Second, we present a seed set of 44 tasks built according to this framework. We discuss initial findings, and highlight directions for new tasks. Finally-inspired by the Open Science movement-we make a call for the legal and computer science communities to join our efforts by contributing new tasks. This work is ongoing, and our progress can be tracked here: https://github.com/HazyResearch/legalbench.

This paper investigates the rational thinking capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in multi-round argumentative debates by exploring the impact of fallacious arguments on their logical reasoning performance. More specifically, we present Logic Competence Measurement Benchmark (LOGICOM), a diagnostic benchmark to assess the robustness of LLMs against logical fallacies. LOGICOM involves two agents: a persuader and a debater engaging in a multi-round debate on a controversial topic, where the persuader tries to convince the debater of the correctness of its claim. First, LOGICOM assesses the potential of LLMs to change their opinions through reasoning. Then, it evaluates the debater's performance in logical reasoning by contrasting the scenario where the persuader employs logical fallacies against one where logical reasoning is used. We use this benchmark to evaluate the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 using a dataset containing controversial topics, claims, and reasons supporting them. Our findings indicate that both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adjust their opinion through reasoning. However, when presented with logical fallacies, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are erroneously convinced 41% and 69% more often, respectively, compared to when logical reasoning is used. Finally, we introduce a new dataset containing over 5k pairs of logical vs. fallacious arguments. The source code and dataset of this work are made publicly available.

Fallacies are arguments that employ invalid reasoning, making their automatic detection critical in sensitive contexts such as high-stakes political debates, where public opinion is shaped. Spotting a fallacious argument requires contextual knowledge beyond its pure surface text. This entails world knowledge pertaining to the subject matter under discussion, as well as knowledge of the relationships that exist between arguments within the argumentative discourse. Prior work on fallacy analysis has shown that argumentative discourse structure can beneficially improve classification performance. However, such structure is typically encoded only as static classifier features, limiting its flexibility. Building on this intuition while addressing this limitation, we introduce a guided retrieval-augmented methodology for fallacy detection and classification that leverages argumentative relations of support and attack to dynamically steer the extraction of relevant documents. We evaluate our approach on the ElecDeb60to20 benchmark across 42 retrieval configurations and 14 models, performing retrieval over a 15GB knowledge base of collected political-related documents. Our approach improves macro-F1 up to 0.864 for fallacy detection and up to 0.725 for classification over non-retrieval baselines. These results show that incorporating external knowledge significantly enhances fallacy detection and classification when retrieval is argumentatively guided.

People ask conversational AI models about their legal rights, obligations, procedures, and personal situations that may have legal consequences. To study this behavior, we first need to distinguish requests for legal guidance from other legally themed discussions and unrelated conversations. We contribute a multi-axis taxonomy of legal queries capturing whether legal guidance is sought, how a request is formulated, and which legal domains it concerns; apply it to 2,122 naturally occurring WildChat-1M conversations; and create a human-reviewed gold evaluation set of 200 conversations. All annotations, model checkpoints, and evaluation code are publicly available. In this enriched sample, 71.1% of conversations containing legal content seek personalized or practical guidance. Rights-and-options advice is the most common primary request type among legal-content conversations, and 25.3% of guidance-positive conversations span multiple legal topics. The gold evaluation set supports a two-stage comparison of ModernBERT-base and ModernBERT-large against a TF-IDF cascade. Our framework supports large-scale studies of legal guidance in conversational AI, and the public release of the annotated data facilitates reproducible research and future model development.

With the recent advances of large language models (LLMs), it is no longer infeasible to build an automated debate system that helps people to synthesise persuasive arguments. Previous work attempted this task by integrating multiple components. In our work, we introduce an argument mining dataset that captures the end-to-end process of preparing an argumentative essay for a debate, which covers the tasks of claim and evidence identification (Task 1 ED), evidence convincingness ranking (Task 2 ECR), argumentative essay summarisation and human preference ranking (Task 3 ASR) and metric learning for automated evaluation of resulting essays, based on human feedback along argument quality dimensions (Task 4 SQE). Our dataset contains 14k examples of claims that are fully annotated with the various properties supporting the aforementioned tasks. We evaluate multiple generative baselines for each of these tasks, including representative LLMs. We find, that while they show promising results on individual tasks in our benchmark, their end-to-end performance on all four tasks in succession deteriorates significantly, both in automated measures as well as in human-centred evaluation. This challenge presented by our proposed dataset motivates future research on end-to-end argument mining and summarisation. The repository of this project is available at https://github.com/HarrywillDr/ArgSum-Datatset

Legal reasoning requires both precise interpretation of statutory language and consistent application of complex rules, presenting significant challenges for AI systems. This paper introduces a modular multi-agent framework that decomposes legal reasoning into distinct knowledge acquisition and application stages. In the first stage, specialized agents extract legal concepts and formalize rules to create verifiable intermediate representations of statutes. The second stage applies this knowledge to specific cases through three steps: analyzing queries to map case facts onto the ontology schema, performing symbolic inference to derive logically entailed conclusions, and generating final answers using a programmatic implementation that operationalizes the ontological knowledge. This bridging of natural language understanding with symbolic reasoning provides explicit and verifiable inspection points, significantly enhancing transparency compared to end-to-end approaches. Evaluation on statutory tax calculation tasks demonstrates substantial improvements, with foundational models achieving 76.4\% accuracy compared to 18.8\% baseline performance, effectively narrowing the performance gap between reasoning and foundational models. These findings suggest that modular architectures with formalized knowledge representations can make sophisticated legal reasoning more accessible through computationally efficient models while enhancing consistency and explainability in AI legal reasoning, establishing a foundation for future research into more transparent, trustworthy, and effective AI systems for legal domain.

This work aims to improve the generalization of logic-based legal reasoning systems by integrating recent advances in NLP with legal-domain adaptive few-shot learning techniques using LLMs. Existing logic-based legal reasoning pipelines typically rely on fine-tuned models to map natural-language legal cases into logical formulas before forwarding them to a symbolic reasoner. However, such approaches are heavily constrained by the scarcity of high-quality annotated training data. To address this limitation, we propose a novel LLM-based legal reasoning framework that enables effective in-context learning through retrieval-augmented generation. Specifically, we introduce Legal2LogicICL, a few-shot retrieval framework that balances diversity and similarity of exemplars at both the latent semantic representation level and the legal text structure level. In addition, our method explicitly accounts for legal structure by mitigating entity-induced retrieval bias in legal texts, where lengthy and highly specific entity mentions often dominate semantic representations and obscure legally meaningful reasoning patterns. Our Legal2LogicICL constructs informative and robust few-shot demonstrations, leading to accurate and stable logical rule generation without requiring additional training. In addition, we construct a new dataset, named Legal2Proleg, which is annotated with alignments between legal cases and PROLEG logical formulas to support the evaluation of legal semantic parsing. Experimental results on both open-source and proprietary LLMs demonstrate that our approach significantly improves accuracy, stability, and generalization in transforming natural-language legal case descriptions into logical representations, highlighting its effectiveness for interpretable and reliable legal reasoning. Our code is available at https://github.com/yingjie7/Legal2LogicICL.

Legal reasoning requires not only correct outcomes but also procedurally compliant reasoning processes. However, existing methods lack mechanisms to verify intermediate reasoning steps, allowing errors such as inapplicable statute citations to propagate undetected through the reasoning chain. To address this, we propose LawThinker, an autonomous legal research agent that adopts an Explore-Verify-Memorize strategy for dynamic judicial environments. The core idea is to enforce verification as an atomic operation after every knowledge exploration step. A DeepVerifier module examines each retrieval result along three dimensions of knowledge accuracy, fact-law relevance, and procedural compliance, with a memory module for cross-round knowledge reuse in long-horizon tasks. Experiments on the dynamic benchmark J1-EVAL show that LawThinker achieves a 24% improvement over direct reasoning and an 11% gain over workflow-based methods, with particularly strong improvements on process-oriented metrics. Evaluations on three static benchmarks further confirm its generalization capability. The code is available at https://github.com/yxy-919/LawThinker-agent .

Explaining Artificial Intelligence (AI) decisions is a major challenge nowadays in AI, in particular when applied to sensitive scenarios like medicine and law. However, the need to explain the rationale behind decisions is a main issue also for human-based deliberation as it is important to justify why a certain decision has been taken. Resident medical doctors for instance are required not only to provide a (possibly correct) diagnosis, but also to explain how they reached a certain conclusion. Developing new tools to aid residents to train their explanation skills is therefore a central objective of AI in education. In this paper, we follow this direction, and we present, to the best of our knowledge, the first multilingual dataset for Medical Question Answering where correct and incorrect diagnoses for a clinical case are enriched with a natural language explanation written by doctors. These explanations have been manually annotated with argument components (i.e., premise, claim) and argument relations (i.e., attack, support), resulting in the Multilingual CasiMedicos-Arg dataset which consists of 558 clinical cases in four languages (English, Spanish, French, Italian) with explanations, where we annotated 5021 claims, 2313 premises, 2431 support relations, and 1106 attack relations. We conclude by showing how competitive baselines perform over this challenging dataset for the argument mining task.

Legal professionals need to write analyses that rely on citations to relevant precedents, i.e., previous case decisions. Intelligent systems assisting legal professionals in writing such documents provide great benefits but are challenging to design. Such systems need to help locate, summarize, and reason over salient precedents in order to be useful. To enable systems for such tasks, we work with legal professionals to transform a large open-source legal corpus into a dataset supporting two important backbone tasks: information retrieval (IR) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). This dataset CLERC (Case Law Evaluation Retrieval Corpus), is constructed for training and evaluating models on their ability to (1) find corresponding citations for a given piece of legal analysis and to (2) compile the text of these citations (as well as previous context) into a cogent analysis that supports a reasoning goal. We benchmark state-of-the-art models on CLERC, showing that current approaches still struggle: GPT-4o generates analyses with the highest ROUGE F-scores but hallucinates the most, while zero-shot IR models only achieve 48.3% recall@1000.

Natural Language Processing (NLP) is revolutionising the way both professionals and laypersons operate in the legal field. The considerable potential for NLP in the legal sector, especially in developing computational assistance tools for various legal processes, has captured the interest of researchers for years. This survey follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework, reviewing 154 studies, with a final selection of 131 after manual filtering. It explores foundational concepts related to NLP in the legal domain, illustrating the unique aspects and challenges of processing legal texts, such as extensive document lengths, complex language, and limited open legal datasets. We provide an overview of NLP tasks specific to legal text, such as Document Summarisation, Named Entity Recognition, Question Answering, Argument Mining, Text Classification, and Judgement Prediction. Furthermore, we analyse both developed legal-oriented language models, and approaches for adapting general-purpose language models to the legal domain. Additionally, we identify sixteen open research challenges, including the detection and mitigation of bias in artificial intelligence applications, the need for more robust and interpretable models, and improving explainability to handle the complexities of legal language and reasoning.

Better understanding of Large Language Models' (LLMs) legal analysis abilities can contribute to improving the efficiency of legal services, governing artificial intelligence, and leveraging LLMs to identify inconsistencies in law. This paper explores LLM capabilities in applying tax law. We choose this area of law because it has a structure that allows us to set up automated validation pipelines across thousands of examples, requires logical reasoning and maths skills, and enables us to test LLM capabilities in a manner relevant to real-world economic lives of citizens and companies. Our experiments demonstrate emerging legal understanding capabilities, with improved performance in each subsequent OpenAI model release. We experiment with retrieving and utilising the relevant legal authority to assess the impact of providing additional legal context to LLMs. Few-shot prompting, presenting examples of question-answer pairs, is also found to significantly enhance the performance of the most advanced model, GPT-4. The findings indicate that LLMs, particularly when combined with prompting enhancements and the correct legal texts, can perform at high levels of accuracy but not yet at expert tax lawyer levels. As LLMs continue to advance, their ability to reason about law autonomously could have significant implications for the legal profession and AI governance.

In computational argumentation, obtaining arguments that explicitly support or attack given claims is a critical precursor to downstream reasoning tasks. When these supporting and attacking arguments are to be retrieved using semantic search methods, they need to be assessed for topic-relevance to the claims of interest as well as for correctness of their (positive or negative) stance towards the claims. In this paper we explore how dense embedding models (hereafter, models), powering modern retrieval pipelines, can serve as the basis of semantic search incorporating this dual assessment. We show experimentally that existing models struggle with asymmetric reasoning, exhibiting a strong bias toward topical overlap while ignoring instructional stance. We also show that correcting this bias via contrastive training triggers a new failure mode where models over-correct, over-fixating on polarity keywords (e.g., "supports" or "refutes") at the expense of the semantic topic. We thus introduce diagnostic word-ablation metrics to quantify this phenomenon and propose a data-centric solution. By implementing a balanced argument curriculum alongside LLM-augmented, stance-inverted arguments, we force the (embedding) models to learn deeper directional logic rather than exploiting superficial lexical shortcuts. Our evaluation demonstrates that, for sufficiently powerful models, this approach can alleviate the observed overcorrection, achieving further improvements in stance-aware argument retrieval.

In this work, we focus on the problem of retrieving relevant arguments for a query claim covering diverse aspects. State-of-the-art methods rely on explicit mappings between claims and premises, and thus are unable to utilize large available collections of premises without laborious and costly manual annotation. Their diversity approach relies on removing duplicates via clustering which does not directly ensure that the selected premises cover all aspects. This work introduces a new multi-step approach for the argument retrieval problem. Rather than relying on ground-truth assignments, our approach employs a machine learning model to capture semantic relationships between arguments. Beyond that, it aims to cover diverse facets of the query, instead of trying to identify duplicates explicitly. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that our approach leads to a significant improvement in the argument retrieval task even though it requires less data.

Argumentation is one of society's foundational pillars, and, sparked by advances in NLP and the vast availability of text data, automated mining of arguments receives increasing attention. A decisive property of arguments is their strength or quality. While there are works on the automated estimation of argument strength, their scope is narrow: they focus on isolated datasets and neglect the interactions with related argument mining tasks, such as argument identification, evidence detection, or emotional appeal. In this work, we close this gap by approaching argument quality estimation from multiple different angles: Grounded on rich results from thorough empirical evaluations, we assess the generalization capabilities of argument quality estimation across diverse domains, the interplay with related argument mining tasks, and the impact of emotions on perceived argument strength. We find that generalization depends on a sufficient representation of different domains in the training part. In zero-shot transfer and multi-task experiments, we reveal that argument quality is among the more challenging tasks but can improve others. Finally, we show that emotions play a minor role in argument quality than is often assumed.

This paper presents a domain-specific implementation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) tailored to the Fair Use Doctrine in U.S. copyright law. Motivated by the increasing prevalence of DMCA takedowns and the lack of accessible legal support for content creators, we propose a structured approach that combines semantic search with legal knowledge graphs and court citation networks to improve retrieval quality and reasoning reliability. Our prototype models legal precedents at the statutory factor level (e.g., purpose, nature, amount, market effect) and incorporates citation-weighted graph representations to prioritize doctrinally authoritative sources. We use Chain-of-Thought reasoning and interleaved retrieval steps to better emulate legal reasoning. Preliminary testing suggests this method improves doctrinal relevance in the retrieval process, laying groundwork for future evaluation and deployment of LLM-based legal assistance tools.

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, as is GPU-accelerated inference to address current timeout rates on CPU hardware.

Legal judgment prediction (LJP) has become increasingly important in the legal field. In this paper, we identify that existing large language models (LLMs) have significant problems of insufficient reasoning due to a lack of legal knowledge. Therefore, we introduce GLARE, an agentic legal reasoning framework that dynamically acquires key legal knowledge by invoking different modules, thereby improving the breadth and depth of reasoning. Experiments conducted on the real-world dataset verify the effectiveness of our method. Furthermore, the reasoning chain generated during the analysis process can increase interpretability and provide the possibility for practical applications.

In 2023, a New York judge sanctioned two attorneys in Mata v. Avianca for filing a brief with hallucinated citations generated by ChatGPT. Such failures are largely caught by database lookups; the harder problem is detecting citations that point to real cases but do not support the propositions for which they are offered -- a failure mode that existing evaluations of LLMs for legal use cases largely overlook. In this paper, we study proposition-level citation support verification through controlled perturbations of real legal citations obtained from two legal corpora, either replacing the cited case or changing only the pinpoint page within the same case. We evaluate fourteen model configurations on the resulting examples. Models catch 93-100% of wrong-case corruptions. They catch only 37-61% of wrong-pinpoint corruptions on court opinions and 52-83% on legal briefs. When models fail to catch wrong-pinpoint corruptions, they accept the citation based on topical overlap rather than page-level support. Scale and extended reasoning narrow the gap but do not close it: GPT-5.4 with high reasoning effort still misses 40% of pinpoint mismatches on court opinions and 18% on briefs. Prompting the model to verify support at the cited page improves recall, but it also raises the false positive rate. Recognizing the right legal topic and verifying support for the cited proposition are distinct capabilities, and current models conflate them.

Visual arguments, often used in advertising or social causes, rely on images to persuade viewers to do or believe something. Understanding these arguments requires selective vision: only specific visual stimuli within an image are relevant to the argument, and relevance can only be understood within the context of a broader argumentative structure. While visual arguments are readily appreciated by human audiences, we ask: are today's AI capable of similar understanding? We collect and release VisArgs, an annotated corpus designed to make explicit the (usually implicit) structures underlying visual arguments. VisArgs includes 1,611 images accompanied by three types of textual annotations: 5,112 visual premises (with region annotations), 5,574 commonsense premises, and reasoning trees connecting them to a broader argument. We propose three tasks over VisArgs to probe machine capacity for visual argument understanding: localization of premises, identification of premises, and deduction of conclusions. Experiments demonstrate that 1) machines cannot fully identify the relevant visual cues. The top-performing model, GPT-4-O, achieved an accuracy of only 78.5%, whereas humans reached 98.0%. All models showed a performance drop, with an average decrease in accuracy of 19.5%, when the comparison set was changed from objects outside the image to irrelevant objects within the image. Furthermore, 2) this limitation is the greatest factor impacting their performance in understanding visual arguments. Most models improved the most when given relevant visual premises as additional inputs, compared to other inputs, for deducing the conclusion of the visual argument.

This paper presents the first dataset for Japanese Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP), the Japanese Tort-case Dataset (JTD), which features two tasks: tort prediction and its rationale extraction. The rationale extraction task identifies the court's accepting arguments from alleged arguments by plaintiffs and defendants, which is a novel task in the field. JTD is constructed based on annotated 3,477 Japanese Civil Code judgments by 41 legal experts, resulting in 7,978 instances with 59,697 of their alleged arguments from the involved parties. Our baseline experiments show the feasibility of the proposed two tasks, and our error analysis by legal experts identifies sources of errors and suggests future directions of the LJP research.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning abilities across specialized domains, motivating research into their application to legal reasoning. However, existing legal benchmarks often conflate factual recall with genuine inference, fragment the reasoning process, and overlook the quality of reasoning. To address these limitations, we introduce MSLR, the first Chinese multi-step legal reasoning dataset grounded in real-world judicial decision making. MSLR adopts the IRAC framework (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) to model structured expert reasoning from official legal documents. In addition, we design a scalable Human-LLM collaborative annotation pipeline that efficiently produces fine-grained step-level reasoning annotations and provides a reusable methodological framework for multi-step reasoning datasets. Evaluation of multiple LLMs on MSLR shows only moderate performance, highlighting the challenges of adapting to complex legal reasoning. Further experiments demonstrate that Self-Initiated Chain-of-Thought prompts generated by models autonomously improve reasoning coherence and quality, outperforming human-designed prompts. MSLR contributes to advancing LLM reasoning and Chain-of-Thought strategies and offers open resources for future research. The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/yuwenhan07/MSLR-Bench and https://law.sjtu.edu.cn/flszyjzx/index.html.

Many individuals are likely to face a legal dispute at some point in their lives, but their lack of understanding of how to navigate these complex issues often renders them vulnerable. The advancement of natural language processing opens new avenues for bridging this legal literacy gap through the development of automated legal aid systems. However, existing legal question answering (LQA) approaches often suffer from a narrow scope, being either confined to specific legal domains or limited to brief, uninformative responses. In this work, we propose an end-to-end methodology designed to generate long-form answers to any statutory law questions, utilizing a "retrieve-then-read" pipeline. To support this approach, we introduce and release the Long-form Legal Question Answering (LLeQA) dataset, comprising 1,868 expert-annotated legal questions in the French language, complete with detailed answers rooted in pertinent legal provisions. Our experimental results demonstrate promising performance on automatic evaluation metrics, but a qualitative analysis uncovers areas for refinement. As one of the only comprehensive, expert-annotated long-form LQA dataset, LLeQA has the potential to not only accelerate research towards resolving a significant real-world issue, but also act as a rigorous benchmark for evaluating NLP models in specialized domains. We publicly release our code, data, and models.

Legal rules encompass not only codified statutes but also implicit adjudicatory principles derived from precedents that contain discretionary norms, social morality, and policy. While computational legal research has advanced in applying established rules to cases, inducing legal rules from judicial decisions remains understudied, constrained by limitations in model inference efficacy and symbolic reasoning capability. The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) offers unprecedented opportunities for automating the extraction of such latent principles, yet progress is stymied by the absence of formal task definitions, benchmark datasets, and methodologies. To address this gap, we formalize Legal Rule Induction (LRI) as the task of deriving concise, generalizable doctrinal rules from sets of analogous precedents, distilling their shared preconditions, normative behaviors, and legal consequences. We introduce the first LRI benchmark, comprising 5,121 case sets (38,088 Chinese cases in total) for model tuning and 216 expert-annotated gold test sets. Experimental results reveal that: 1) State-of-the-art LLMs struggle with over-generalization and hallucination; 2) Training on our dataset markedly enhances LLMs capabilities in capturing nuanced rule patterns across similar cases.

Legal practitioners, particularly those early in their careers, face complex, high-stakes tasks that require adaptive, context-sensitive reasoning. While AI holds promise in supporting legal work, current datasets and models are narrowly focused on isolated subtasks and fail to capture the end-to-end decision-making required in real-world practice. To address this gap, we introduce LawFlow, a dataset of complete end-to-end legal workflows collected from trained law students, grounded in real-world business entity formation scenarios. Unlike prior datasets focused on input-output pairs or linear chains of thought, LawFlow captures dynamic, modular, and iterative reasoning processes that reflect the ambiguity, revision, and client-adaptive strategies of legal practice. Using LawFlow, we compare human and LLM-generated workflows, revealing systematic differences in structure, reasoning flexibility, and plan execution. Human workflows tend to be modular and adaptive, while LLM workflows are more sequential, exhaustive, and less sensitive to downstream implications. Our findings also suggest that legal professionals prefer AI to carry out supportive roles, such as brainstorming, identifying blind spots, and surfacing alternatives, rather than executing complex workflows end-to-end. Building on these findings, we propose a set of design suggestions, rooted in empirical observations, that align AI assistance with human goals of clarity, completeness, creativity, and efficiency, through hybrid planning, adaptive execution, and decision-point support. Our results highlight both the current limitations of LLMs in supporting complex legal workflows and opportunities for developing more collaborative, reasoning-aware legal AI systems. All data and code are available on our project page (https://minnesotanlp.github.io/LawFlow-website/).

Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful candidates for complex decision-making, leveraging vast encoded knowledge and remarkable zero-shot abilities. However, their adoption in high-stakes environments is hindered by their opacity; their outputs lack faithful explanations and cannot be effectively contested to correct errors, undermining trustworthiness. In this paper, we propose ART (Adaptive Reasoning Trees), a hierarchical method for claim verification. The process begins with a root claim, which branches into supporting and attacking child arguments. An argument's strength is determined bottom-up via a pairwise tournament of its children, adjudicated by a judge LLM, allowing a final, transparent and contestable verdict to be systematically derived which is missing in methods like Chain-of-Thought (CoT). We empirically validate ART on multiple datasets, analyzing different argument generators and comparison strategies. Our findings show that ART's structured reasoning outperforms strong baselines, establishing a new benchmark for explainable claim verification which is more reliable and ensures clarity in the overall decision making step.

One of the main tasks in argument mining is the retrieval of argumentative content pertaining to a given topic. Most previous work addressed this task by retrieving a relatively small number of relevant documents as the initial source for such content. This line of research yielded moderate success, which is of limited use in a real-world system. Furthermore, for such a system to yield a comprehensive set of relevant arguments, over a wide range of topics, it requires leveraging a large and diverse corpus in an appropriate manner. Here we present a first end-to-end high-precision, corpus-wide argument mining system. This is made possible by combining sentence-level queries over an appropriate indexing of a very large corpus of newspaper articles, with an iterative annotation scheme. This scheme addresses the inherent label bias in the data and pinpoints the regions of the sample space whose manual labeling is required to obtain high-precision among top-ranked candidates.

Legal case retrieval (LCR) is a cornerstone of real-world legal decision making, as it enables practitioners to identify precedents for a given query case. Existing approaches mainly rely on traditional lexical models and pretrained language models to encode the texts of legal cases. Yet there are rich information in the relations among different legal entities as well as the crucial reasoning process that uncovers how legal facts and legal issues can lead to judicial decisions. Such relational reasoning process reflects the distinctive characteristics of each case that can distinguish one from another, mirroring the real-world judicial process. Naturally, incorporating such information into the precise case embedding could further enhance the accuracy of case retrieval. In this paper, a novel ReaKase-8B framework is proposed to leverage extracted legal facts, legal issues, legal relation triplets and legal reasoning for effective legal case retrieval. ReaKase-8B designs an in-context legal case representation learning paradigm with a fine-tuned large language model. Extensive experiments on two benchmark datasets from COLIEE 2022 and COLIEE 2023 demonstrate that our knowledge and reasoning augmented embeddings substantially improve retrieval performance over baseline models, highlighting the potential of integrating legal reasoning into legal case retrieval systems. The code has been released on https://github.com/yanran-tang/ReaKase-8B.

Legislation can be viewed as a body of prescriptive rules expressed in natural language. The application of legislation to facts of a case we refer to as statutory reasoning, where those facts are also expressed in natural language. Computational statutory reasoning is distinct from most existing work in machine reading, in that much of the information needed for deciding a case is declared exactly once (a law), while the information needed in much of machine reading tends to be learned through distributional language statistics. To investigate the performance of natural language understanding approaches on statutory reasoning, we introduce a dataset, together with a legal-domain text corpus. Straightforward application of machine reading models exhibits low out-of-the-box performance on our questions, whether or not they have been fine-tuned to the legal domain. We contrast this with a hand-constructed Prolog-based system, designed to fully solve the task. These experiments support a discussion of the challenges facing statutory reasoning moving forward, which we argue is an interesting real-world task that can motivate the development of models able to utilize prescriptive rules specified in natural language.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at linear reasoning tasks but remain underexplored on non-linear structures such as those found in natural debates, which are best expressed as argument graphs. We evaluate whether LLMs can approximate structured reasoning from Computational Argumentation Theory (CAT). Specifically, we use Quantitative Argumentation Debate (QuAD) semantics, which assigns acceptability scores to arguments based on their attack and support relations. Given only dialogue-formatted debates from two NoDE datasets, models are prompted to rank arguments without access to the underlying graph. We test several LLMs under advanced instruction strategies, including Chain-of-Thought and In-Context Learning. While models show moderate alignment with QuAD rankings, performance degrades with longer inputs or disrupted discourse flow. Advanced prompting helps mitigate these effects by reducing biases related to argument length and position. Our findings highlight both the promise and limitations of LLMs in modeling formal argumentation semantics and motivate future work on graph-aware reasoning.

Rule-based reasoning, a fundamental type of legal reasoning, enables us to draw conclusions by accurately applying a rule to a set of facts. We explore causal language models as rule-based reasoners, specifically with respect to compositional rules - rules consisting of multiple elements which form a complex logical expression. Reasoning about compositional rules is challenging because it requires multiple reasoning steps, and attending to the logical relationships between elements. We introduce a new prompting method, Chain of Logic, which elicits rule-based reasoning through decomposition (solving elements as independent threads of logic), and recomposition (recombining these sub-answers to resolve the underlying logical expression). This method was inspired by the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) framework, a sequential reasoning approach used by lawyers. We evaluate chain of logic across eight rule-based reasoning tasks involving three distinct compositional rules from the LegalBench benchmark and demonstrate it consistently outperforms other prompting methods, including chain of thought and self-ask, using open-source and commercial language models.

We introduce OpenDebateEvidence, a comprehensive dataset for argument mining and summarization sourced from the American Competitive Debate community. This dataset includes over 3.5 million documents with rich metadata, making it one of the most extensive collections of debate evidence. OpenDebateEvidence captures the complexity of arguments in high school and college debates, providing valuable resources for training and evaluation. Our extensive experiments demonstrate the efficacy of fine-tuning state-of-the-art large language models for argumentative abstractive summarization across various methods, models, and datasets. By providing this comprehensive resource, we aim to advance computational argumentation and support practical applications for debaters, educators, and researchers. OpenDebateEvidence is publicly available to support further research and innovation in computational argumentation. Access it here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Yusuf5/OpenCaselist

As the most public component of the Supreme Court's decision-making process, oral argument receives an out-sized share of attention in the popular media. Despite its prominence, however, the basic function and operation of oral argument as an institution remains poorly understood, as political scientists and legal scholars continue to debate even the most fundamental questions about its role. Past study of oral argument has tended to focus on discrete, quantifiable attributes of oral argument, such as the number of questions asked to each advocate, the party of the Justices' appointing president, or the ideological implications of the case on appeal. Such studies allow broad generalizations about oral argument and judicial decision making: Justices tend to vote in accordance with their ideological preferences, and they tend to ask more questions when they are skeptical of a party's position. But they tell us little about the actual goings on at oral argument -- the running dialog between Justice and advocate that is the heart of the institution. This Article fills that void, using machine learning techniques to, for the first time, construct predictive models of judicial decision making based not on oral argument's superficial features or on factors external to oral argument, such as where the case falls on a liberal-conservative spectrum, but on the actual content of the oral argument itself -- the Justices' questions to each side. The resultant models offer an important new window into aspects of oral argument that have long resisted empirical study, including the Justices' individual questioning styles, how each expresses skepticism, and which of the Justices' questions are most central to oral argument dialog.

Deontic reasoning is the task of answering questions by applying explicit rules and policies to case-specific facts, for example computing tax liability under a statute or determining the outcome of an immigration appeal. A key technical challenge for LLM-based deontic reasoning is that the relevant ruleset can be long and cross-referenced, so models may still fail to locate the rules needed for a particular reasoning step. We introduce Deontic Agentic Reasoning (DAR), an agentic reasoning setup in which the model interacts with the statutes on demand. We evaluate DAR under multiple harnesses on hard subsets of DeonticBench. Across these settings, we find that agentic harnesses can push the frontier on deontic reasoning tasks, but improvements are not uniform: weaker models often degrade on numerical tasks while consuming far more tokens.

Argument mining involves multiple sub-tasks that automatically identify argumentative elements, such as claim detection, evidence extraction, stance classification, etc. However, each subtask alone is insufficient for a thorough understanding of the argumentative structure and reasoning process. To learn a complete view of an argument essay and capture the interdependence among argumentative components, we need to know what opinions people hold (i.e., claims), why those opinions are valid (i.e., supporting evidence), which source the evidence comes from (i.e., evidence type), and how those claims react to the debating topic (i.e., stance). In this work, we for the first time propose a challenging argument quadruplet extraction task (AQE), which can provide an all-in-one extraction of four argumentative components, i.e., claims, evidence, evidence types, and stances. To support this task, we construct a large-scale and challenging dataset. However, there is no existing method that can solve the argument quadruplet extraction. To fill this gap, we propose a novel quad-tagging augmented generative approach, which leverages a quadruplet tagging module to augment the training of the generative framework. The experimental results on our dataset demonstrate the empirical superiority of our proposed approach over several strong baselines.

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.

Interpretability or explainability is an emerging research field in NLP. From a user-centric point of view, the goal is to build models that provide proper justification for their decisions, similar to those of humans, by requiring the models to satisfy additional constraints. To this end, we introduce a new application on legal text where, contrary to mainstream literature targeting word-level rationales, we conceive rationales as selected paragraphs in multi-paragraph structured court cases. We also release a new dataset comprising European Court of Human Rights cases, including annotations for paragraph-level rationales. We use this dataset to study the effect of already proposed rationale constraints, i.e., sparsity, continuity, and comprehensiveness, formulated as regularizers. Our findings indicate that some of these constraints are not beneficial in paragraph-level rationale extraction, while others need re-formulation to better handle the multi-label nature of the task we consider. We also introduce a new constraint, singularity, which further improves the quality of rationales, even compared with noisy rationale supervision. Experimental results indicate that the newly introduced task is very challenging and there is a large scope for further research.

Language serves as a vehicle for conveying thought, enabling communication among individuals. The ability to distinguish between diverse concepts, identify fairness and injustice, and comprehend a range of legal notions fundamentally relies on logical reasoning. Large Language Models (LLMs) attempt to emulate human language understanding and generation, but their competency in logical reasoning remains limited. This paper seeks to address the philosophical question: How can we effectively teach logical reasoning to LLMs while maintaining a deep understanding of the intricate relationship between language and logic? By focusing on bolstering LLMs' capabilities in logical reasoning, we aim to expand their applicability in law and other logic-intensive disciplines. To this end, we propose a Reinforcement Learning from Logical Feedback (RLLF) approach, which serves as a potential framework for refining LLMs' reasoning capacities. Through RLLF and a revised evaluation methodology, we explore new avenues for research in this domain and contribute to the development of LLMs capable of handling complex legal reasoning tasks while acknowledging the fundamental connection between language and logic.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in legal applications, current evaluation benchmarks tend to focus mainly on factual accuracy while largely neglecting important linguistic quality aspects such as clarity, coherence, and terminology. To address this gap, we propose three steps: First, we develop a regression model to evaluate the quality of legal texts based on clarity, coherence, and terminology. Second, we create a specialized set of legal questions. Third, we analyze 49 LLMs using this evaluation framework. Our analysis identifies three key findings: First, model quality levels off at 14 billion parameters, with only a marginal improvement of 2.7% noted at 72 billion parameters. Second, engineering choices such as quantization and context length have a negligible impact, as indicated by statistical significance thresholds above 0.016. Third, reasoning models consistently outperform base architectures. A significant outcome of our research is the release of a ranking list and Pareto analysis, which highlight the Qwen3 series as the optimal choice for cost-performance tradeoffs. This work not only establishes standardized evaluation protocols for legal LLMs but also uncovers fundamental limitations in current training data refinement approaches. Code and models are available at: https://github.com/lyxx3rd/LegalEval-Q.

Legal practice has witnessed a sharp rise in products incorporating artificial intelligence (AI). Such tools are designed to assist with a wide range of core legal tasks, from search and summarization of caselaw to document drafting. But the large language models used in these tools are prone to "hallucinate," or make up false information, making their use risky in high-stakes domains. Recently, certain legal research providers have touted methods such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) as "eliminating" (Casetext, 2023) or "avoid[ing]" hallucinations (Thomson Reuters, 2023), or guaranteeing "hallucination-free" legal citations (LexisNexis, 2023). Because of the closed nature of these systems, systematically assessing these claims is challenging. In this article, we design and report on the first preregistered empirical evaluation of AI-driven legal research tools. We demonstrate that the providers' claims are overstated. While hallucinations are reduced relative to general-purpose chatbots (GPT-4), we find that the AI research tools made by LexisNexis (Lexis+ AI) and Thomson Reuters (Westlaw AI-Assisted Research and Ask Practical Law AI) each hallucinate between 17% and 33% of the time. We also document substantial differences between systems in responsiveness and accuracy. Our article makes four key contributions. It is the first to assess and report the performance of RAG-based proprietary legal AI tools. Second, it introduces a comprehensive, preregistered dataset for identifying and understanding vulnerabilities in these systems. Third, it proposes a clear typology for differentiating between hallucinations and accurate legal responses. Last, it provides evidence to inform the responsibilities of legal professionals in supervising and verifying AI outputs, which remains a central open question for the responsible integration of AI into law.

Claim verification is critical for enhancing digital literacy. However, the state-of-the-art single-LLM methods struggle with complex claim verification that involves multi-faceted evidences. Inspired by real-world fact-checking practices, we propose DebateCV, the first claim verification framework that adopts a debate-driven methodology using multiple LLM agents. In our framework, two Debaters take opposing stances on a claim and engage in multi-round argumentation, while a Moderator evaluates the arguments and renders a verdict with justifications. To further improve the performance of the Moderator, we introduce a novel post-training strategy that leverages synthetic debate data generated by the zero-shot DebateCV, effectively addressing the scarcity of real-world debate-driven claim verification data. Experimental results show that our method outperforms existing claim verification methods under varying levels of evidence quality. Our code and dataset are publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/DebateCV-6781.

The connections among natural language processing and argumentation theory are becoming stronger in the latest years, with a growing amount of works going in this direction, in different scenarios and applying heterogeneous techniques. In this paper, we present two datasets we built to cope with the combination of the Textual Entailment framework and bipolar abstract argumentation. In our approach, such datasets are used to automatically identify through a Textual Entailment system the relations among the arguments (i.e., attack, support), and then the resulting bipolar argumentation graphs are analyzed to compute the accepted arguments.

In this work we address the problem of argument search. The purpose of argument search is the distillation of pro and contra arguments for requested topics from large text corpora. In previous works, the usual approach is to use a standard search engine to extract text parts which are relevant to the given topic and subsequently use an argument recognition algorithm to select arguments from them. The main challenge in the argument recognition task, which is also known as argument mining, is that often sentences containing arguments are structurally similar to purely informative sentences without any stance about the topic. In fact, they only differ semantically. Most approaches use topic or search term information only for the first search step and therefore assume that arguments can be classified independently of a topic. We argue that topic information is crucial for argument mining, since the topic defines the semantic context of an argument. Precisely, we propose different models for the classification of arguments, which take information about a topic of an argument into account. Moreover, to enrich the context of a topic and to let models understand the context of the potential argument better, we integrate information from different external sources such as Knowledge Graphs or pre-trained NLP models. Our evaluation shows that considering topic information, especially in connection with external information, provides a significant performance boost for the argument mining task.

Legal claims refer to the plaintiff's demands in a case and are essential to guiding judicial reasoning and case resolution. While many works have focused on improving the efficiency of legal professionals, the research on helping non-professionals (e.g., plaintiffs) remains unexplored. This paper explores the problem of legal claim generation based on the given case's facts. First, we construct ClaimGen-CN, the first dataset for Chinese legal claim generation task, from various real-world legal disputes. Additionally, we design an evaluation metric tailored for assessing the generated claims, which encompasses two essential dimensions: factuality and clarity. Building on this, we conduct a comprehensive zero-shot evaluation of state-of-the-art general and legal-domain large language models. Our findings highlight the limitations of the current models in factual precision and expressive clarity, pointing to the need for more targeted development in this domain. To encourage further exploration of this important task, we will make the dataset publicly available.

While Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated exceptional logical capabilities in mathematical domains, their application to the legal field remains hindered by the strict requirements for procedural rigor and adherence to legal logic. Existing legal LLMs, which rely on "closed-loop reasoning" derived solely from internal parametric knowledge, frequently suffer from lack of self-awareness regarding their knowledge boundaries, leading to confident yet incorrect conclusions. To address this challenge, we present Legal Reasoning with Agentic Search (LRAS), the first framework designed to transition legal LLMs from static and parametric "closed-loop thinking" to dynamic and interactive "Active Inquiry". By integrating Introspective Imitation Learning and Difficulty-aware Reinforcement Learning, LRAS enables LRMs to identify knowledge boundaries and handle legal reasoning complexity. Empirical results demonstrate that LRAS outperforms state-of-the-art baselines by 8.2-32\%, with the most substantial gains observed in tasks requiring deep reasoning with reliable knowledge. We will release our data and models for further exploration soon.

Legal Statute Prediction (LSP) involves automatically identifying relevant legal statutes given factual descriptions in legal documents, typically framed as a multi-label classification task within natural language processing and information retrieval research. While recent advances have begun incorporating Large Language Models (LLMs) for statute prediction, current approaches primarily focus on accuracy metrics without addressing the critical need for legal reasoning, a fundamental requirement in judicial contexts where decisions must be explainable and justifiable. To address this research gap, we present PROSLEX (PRediction Of Statutes and LEgal eXplanation), a comprehensive dataset comprising 1,623 expert-annotated legal documents from the Indian context. Each document is paired with statute predictions and detailed explanations, totaling 7,450 explanations, capturing the underlying legal reasoning. Using this dataset, we systematically evaluate various prompting strategies, including zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, and tree-of-thoughts approaches, to generate both statute predictions and their corresponding legal rationales. Our evaluation framework measures not only predictive performance but also the coherence and legal validity of generated explanations, positioning PROSLEX as a benchmark for developing explainable AI systems that can support legal practitioners while advancing research in interpretable legal NLP. To ensure reproducibility, we have made our PROSLEX dataset and model code available on GitHub: https://github.com/subinay494/Legal_Statute_Prediction_Explanation.

Identification of rhetorical roles like facts, arguments, and final judgments is central to understanding a legal case document and can lend power to other downstream tasks like legal case summarization and judgment prediction. However, there are several challenges to this task. Legal documents are often unstructured and contain a specialized vocabulary, making it hard for conventional transformer models to understand them. Additionally, these documents run into several pages, which makes it difficult for neural models to capture the entire context at once. Lastly, there is a dearth of annotated legal documents to train deep learning models. Previous state-of-the-art approaches for this task have focused on using neural models like BiLSTM-CRF or have explored different embedding techniques to achieve decent results. While such techniques have shown that better embedding can result in improved model performance, not many models have focused on utilizing attention for learning better embeddings in sentences of a document. Additionally, it has been recently shown that advanced techniques like multi-task learning can help the models learn better representations, thereby improving performance. In this paper, we combine these two aspects by proposing a novel family of multi-task learning-based models for rhetorical role labeling, named MARRO, that uses transformer-inspired multi-headed attention. Using label shift as an auxiliary task, we show that models from the MARRO family achieve state-of-the-art results on two labeled datasets for rhetorical role labeling, from the Indian and UK Supreme Courts.

Large language models increasingly justify legal decisions by naming the statute or precedent behind a verdict, treated as evidence that the decision follows from it. We test this directly: holding case facts fixed, we substitute the named legal authority for an unrelated one and decode a model's evolving verdict from its hidden states. Across seven open-weight models (8B-70B) and four benchmarks spanning judicial and contractual reasoning, when explicitly required to justify a verdict by naming the governing authority, models name the correct one in 66.7%-100% of generations, while the verdict changing when the authority changes is far less consistent: 0.0%-21.7% on CaseHOLD, 30.0%-76.7% on ECHR and SCOTUS, and 43.3%-50.0% on ContractNLI. Neither scale nor a purpose-built legal-reasoning model (a best-effort LoRA reproduction; Section 6) closes this gap. A red-teaming evaluation on five core models finds compliance with an adversarial instruction hidden in the case facts (73.3%-96.4%) exceeds verdict-swap sensitivity by a wide margin, holding without exception across model rankings. Naming a legal authority is thus a poor proxy for a verdict's dependence on it, while the same verdict remains separately vulnerable to adversarial manipulation. Both findings replicate across checks ruling out prompt-wording noise and confounded sampling, and bear directly on the use of generated legal explanations as compliance or audit artefacts.

Automatically understanding the rhetorical roles of sentences in a legal case judgement is an important problem to solve, since it can help in several downstream tasks like summarization of legal judgments, legal search, and so on. The task is challenging since legal case documents are usually not well-structured, and these rhetorical roles may be subjective (as evident from variation of opinions between legal experts). In this paper, we address this task for judgments from the Supreme Court of India. We label sentences in 50 documents using multiple human annotators, and perform an extensive analysis of the human-assigned labels. We also attempt automatic identification of the rhetorical roles of sentences. While prior approaches towards this task used Conditional Random Fields over manually handcrafted features, we explore the use of deep neural models which do not require hand-crafting of features. Experiments show that neural models perform much better in this task than baseline methods which use handcrafted features.

Generation of long-form, citation-backed reports is a primary use case for retrieval augmented generation (RAG) systems. While open-source evaluation tools exist for various RAG tasks, ones tailored to report generation (RG) are lacking. Accordingly, we introduce Auto-ARGUE, a robust LLM-based implementation of the recently proposed ARGUE framework for RG evaluation. We present analysis of Auto-ARGUE on the RG pilot task from the TREC 2024 NeuCLIR track, showing good system-level correlations with human judgments. We further release a web app for visualization of Auto-ARGUE outputs.

Large language models (LLMs), while promising, face criticisms for biases, hallucinations, and a lack of reasoning capability. This paper introduces SocraSynth, a multi-LLM agent reasoning platform developed to mitigate these issues. SocraSynth utilizes conditional statistics and systematic context enhancement through continuous arguments, alongside adjustable debate contentiousness levels. The platform typically involves a human moderator and two LLM agents representing opposing viewpoints on a given subject. SocraSynth operates in two main phases: knowledge generation and reasoning evaluation. In the knowledge generation phase, the moderator defines the debate topic and contentiousness level, prompting the agents to formulate supporting arguments for their respective stances. The reasoning evaluation phase then employs Socratic reasoning and formal logic principles to appraise the quality of the arguments presented. The dialogue concludes with the moderator adjusting the contentiousness from confrontational to collaborative, gathering final, conciliatory remarks to aid in human reasoning and decision-making. Through case studies in three distinct application domains, this paper showcases SocraSynth's effectiveness in fostering rigorous research, dynamic reasoning, comprehensive assessment, and enhanced collaboration. This underscores the value of multi-agent interactions in leveraging LLMs for advanced knowledge extraction and decision-making support.

Legal contracts in the custody and fund services domain govern critical aspects such as key provider responsibilities, fee schedules, and indemnification rights. However, it is challenging for an off-the-shelf Large Language Model (LLM) to ingest these contracts due to the lengthy unstructured streams of text, limited LLM context windows, and complex legal jargon. To address these challenges, we introduce LAW (Legal Agentic Workflows for Custody and Fund Services Contracts). LAW features a modular design that responds to user queries by orchestrating a suite of domain-specific tools and text agents. Our experiments demonstrate that LAW, by integrating multiple specialized agents and tools, significantly outperforms the baseline. LAW excels particularly in complex tasks such as calculating a contract's termination date, surpassing the baseline by 92.9% points. Furthermore, LAW offers a cost-effective alternative to traditional fine-tuned legal LLMs by leveraging reusable, domain-specific tools.

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.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has enabled new possibilities for applying artificial intelligence within the legal domain. Nonetheless, the complexity, hierarchical organization, and frequent revisions of Vietnamese legislation pose considerable challenges for evaluating how well these models interpret and utilize legal knowledge. To address this gap, the Vietnamese Legal Benchmark (VLegal-Bench) is introduced, the first comprehensive benchmark designed to systematically assess LLMs on Vietnamese legal tasks. Informed by Bloom's cognitive taxonomy, VLegal-Bench encompasses multiple levels of legal understanding through tasks designed to reflect practical usage scenarios. The benchmark comprises 10,450 samples generated through a rigorous annotation pipeline, where legal experts label and cross-validate each instance using our annotation system to ensure every sample is grounded in authoritative legal documents and mirrors real-world legal assistant workflows, including general legal questions and answers, retrieval-augmented generation, multi-step reasoning, and scenario-based problem solving tailored to Vietnamese law. By providing a standardized, transparent, and cognitively informed evaluation framework, VLegal-Bench establishes a solid foundation for assessing LLM performance in Vietnamese legal contexts and supports the development of more reliable, interpretable, and ethically aligned AI-assisted legal systems. To facilitate access and reproducibility, we provide a public landing page for this benchmark at https://vilegalbench.cmcai.vn/.

In this paper we discuss the capability of large language models to base their answer and provide proper references when dealing with legal matters of non-english and non-chinese speaking country. We discuss the history of legal information retrieval, the difference between case law and statute law, its impact on the legal tasks and analyze the latest research in this field. Basing on that background we introduce gAIus, the architecture of the cognitive LLM-based agent, whose responses are based on the knowledge retrieved from certain legal act, which is Polish Civil Code. We propose a retrieval mechanism which is more explainable, human-friendly and achieves better results than embedding-based approaches. To evaluate our method we create special dataset based on single-choice questions from entrance exams for law apprenticeships conducted in Poland. The proposed architecture critically leveraged the abilities of used large language models, improving the gpt-3.5-turbo-0125 by 419%, allowing it to beat gpt-4o and lifting gpt-4o-mini score from 31% to 86%. At the end of our paper we show the possible future path of research and potential applications of our findings.

Finding truly analogous precedents requires capturing legal reasoning beyond surface word overlap. We present a two-stage, section-aware framework for legal case retrieval that first segments raw judgments into facts, issues, decision, and reasoning using a deterministic large language model (LLM) offline. In Stage 1, we combine parallel lexical (BM25) and semantic (dense ANN) whole-document searches via Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF) to form a high-recall candidate pool. In Stage 2, we perform fine-grained, like-for-like comparisons (e.g., query reasoning vs. candidate reasoning). To address the scale mismatch between unbounded lexical scores and cosine similarities, we apply query-wise Z-score normalization before aggregating signals with learned section weights. For the top results, the system returns the relevant section text with a concise, grounded rationale and party-stance labels. We evaluate on a jurisdiction-scale benchmark, demonstrating consistent gains over strong lexical and neural baselines while maintaining high candidate coverage

With the advancement in argument detection, we suggest to pay more attention to the challenging task of identifying the more convincing arguments. Machines capable of responding and interacting with humans in helpful ways have become ubiquitous. We now expect them to discuss with us the more delicate questions in our world, and they should do so armed with effective arguments. But what makes an argument more persuasive? What will convince you? In this paper, we present a new data set, IBM-EviConv, of pairs of evidence labeled for convincingness, designed to be more challenging than existing alternatives. We also propose a Siamese neural network architecture shown to outperform several baselines on both a prior convincingness data set and our own. Finally, we provide insights into our experimental results and the various kinds of argumentative value our method is capable of detecting.

Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to transform the practice of law, but this potential is threatened by the presence of legal hallucinations -- responses from these models that are not consistent with legal facts. We investigate the extent of these hallucinations using an original suite of legal queries, comparing LLMs' responses to structured legal metadata and examining their consistency. Our work makes four key contributions: (1) We develop a typology of legal hallucinations, providing a conceptual framework for future research in this area. (2) We find that legal hallucinations are alarmingly prevalent, occurring between 69% of the time with ChatGPT 3.5 and 88% with Llama 2, when these models are asked specific, verifiable questions about random federal court cases. (3) We illustrate that LLMs often fail to correct a user's incorrect legal assumptions in a contra-factual question setup. (4) We provide evidence that LLMs cannot always predict, or do not always know, when they are producing legal hallucinations. Taken together, these findings caution against the rapid and unsupervised integration of popular LLMs into legal tasks. Even experienced lawyers must remain wary of legal hallucinations, and the risks are highest for those who stand to benefit from LLMs the most -- pro se litigants or those without access to traditional legal resources.

AI has become pervasive in recent years, but state-of-the-art approaches predominantly neglect the need for AI systems to be contestable. Instead, contestability is advocated by AI guidelines (e.g. by the OECD) and regulation of automated decision-making (e.g. GDPR). In this position paper we explore how contestability can be achieved computationally in and for AI. We argue that contestable AI requires dynamic (human-machine and/or machine-machine) explainability and decision-making processes, whereby machines can (i) interact with humans and/or other machines to progressively explain their outputs and/or their reasoning as well as assess grounds for contestation provided by these humans and/or other machines, and (ii) revise their decision-making processes to redress any issues successfully raised during contestation. Given that much of the current AI landscape is tailored to static AIs, the need to accommodate contestability will require a radical rethinking, that, we argue, computational argumentation is ideally suited to support.

In populous countries, pending legal cases have been growing exponentially. There is a need for developing techniques for processing and organizing legal documents. In this paper, we introduce a new corpus for structuring legal documents. In particular, we introduce a corpus of legal judgment documents in English that are segmented into topical and coherent parts. Each of these parts is annotated with a label coming from a list of pre-defined Rhetorical Roles. We develop baseline models for automatically predicting rhetorical roles in a legal document based on the annotated corpus. Further, we show the application of rhetorical roles to improve performance on the tasks of summarization and legal judgment prediction. We release the corpus and baseline model code along with the paper.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is taking on increasingly autonomous roles, e.g., browsing the web as a research assistant and managing money. But specifying goals and restrictions for AI behavior is difficult. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential "if-then" contingency of their future relationship, we cannot specify desired AI behavior for all circumstances. Legal standards facilitate robust communication of inherently vague and underspecified goals. Instructions (in the case of language models, "prompts") that employ legal standards will allow AI agents to develop shared understandings of the spirit of a directive that generalize expectations regarding acceptable actions to take in unspecified states of the world. Standards have built-in context that is lacking from other goal specification languages, such as plain language and programming languages. Through an empirical study on thousands of evaluation labels we constructed from U.S. court opinions, we demonstrate that large language models (LLMs) are beginning to exhibit an "understanding" of one of the most relevant legal standards for AI agents: fiduciary obligations. Performance comparisons across models suggest that, as LLMs continue to exhibit improved core capabilities, their legal standards understanding will also continue to improve. OpenAI's latest LLM has 78% accuracy on our data, their previous release has 73% accuracy, and a model from their 2020 GPT-3 paper has 27% accuracy (worse than random). Our research is an initial step toward a framework for evaluating AI understanding of legal standards more broadly, and for conducting reinforcement learning with legal feedback (RLLF).

Court judgments are central to legal practice and jurisprudence, yet discourse analysis of Hong Kong judgments has received limited attention, owing largely to the absence of expert-annotated corpora. We introduce the Hong Kong Judgment Discourse Dataset (HKJudge), the first sentence-level expert-annotated legal discourse corpus. HKJudge includes criminal judgments across all five levels of HK's court hierarchy, comprising sim290k sentences and sim6.5 million tokens, fully annotated by legal linguistics experts. We design a two-tier discourse schema that captures what facts a court finds, how it reasons, and what it rules. At the sentence level, each sentence is assigned one of 26 rhetorical roles. At the span level, sentences are further annotated with three sentencing elements (charge, imprisonment term, fine). Ten legal linguistics annotators produced the annotations with an inter-annotator agreement of κ= 0.8. We formulate two tasks on HKJudge, termed rhetorical role classification and legal element extraction, and provide the first benchmark evaluation of four BERT-based models, two open-source LLMs under zero-shot and fine-tuning settings, and four commercial LLMs on both tasks. Our work demonstrates the value of sentence-level discourse annotation for modeling the structure of HK judgments and provides a rich data foundation for future work on legal judgment prediction. The HKJudge dataset and code are available at https://github.com/xuanxixi/HKJudge.

A document which elaborates opinions and arguments related to the previous court cases is known as a legal opinion text. Lawyers and legal officials have to spend considerable effort and time to obtain the required information manually from those documents when dealing with new legal cases. Hence, it provides much convenience to those individuals if there is a way to automate the process of extracting information from legal opinion texts. Party-based sentiment analysis will play a key role in the automation system by identifying opinion values with respect to each legal parties in legal texts.

Common law courts need to refer to similar precedents' judgments to inform their current decisions. Generating high-quality summaries of court judgment documents can facilitate legal practitioners to efficiently review previous cases and assist the general public in accessing how the courts operate and how the law is applied. Previous court judgment summarization research focuses on civil law or a particular jurisdiction's judgments. However, judges can refer to the judgments from all common law jurisdictions. Current summarization datasets are insufficient to satisfy the demands of summarizing precedents across multiple jurisdictions, especially when labeled data are scarce for many jurisdictions. To address the lack of datasets, we present CLSum, the first dataset for summarizing multi-jurisdictional common law court judgment documents. Besides, this is the first court judgment summarization work adopting large language models (LLMs) in data augmentation, summary generation, and evaluation. Specifically, we design an LLM-based data augmentation method incorporating legal knowledge. We also propose a legal knowledge enhanced evaluation metric based on LLM to assess the quality of generated judgment summaries. Our experimental results verify that the LLM-based summarization methods can perform well in the few-shot and zero-shot settings. Our LLM-based data augmentation method can mitigate the impact of low data resources. Furthermore, we carry out comprehensive comparative experiments to find essential model components and settings that are capable of enhancing summarization performance.

With the exponential growth of research facilitated by modern technology and improved accessibility, scientific discoveries have become increasingly fragmented within and across fields. This makes it challenging to assess the significance, novelty, incremental findings, and equivalent ideas between related works, particularly those from different research communities. Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong quantitative and qualitative reasoning abilities, and multi-agent LLM debates have shown promise in handling complex reasoning tasks by exploring diverse perspectives and reasoning paths. Inspired by this, we introduce Tree-of-Debate (ToD), a framework which converts scientific papers into LLM personas that debate their respective novelties. To emphasize structured, critical reasoning rather than focusing solely on outcomes, ToD dynamically constructs a debate tree, enabling fine-grained analysis of independent novelty arguments within scholarly articles. Through experiments on scientific literature across various domains, evaluated by expert researchers, we demonstrate that ToD generates informative arguments, effectively contrasts papers, and supports researchers in their literature review.

This work demonstrates that Legal Judgement Prediction systems without expert-informed adjustments can be vulnerable to shallow, distracting surface signals that arise from corpus construction, case distribution, and confounding factors. To mitigate this, we use domain expertise to strategically identify statistically predictive but legally irrelevant information. We adopt adversarial training to prevent the system from relying on it. We evaluate our deconfounded models by employing interpretability techniques and comparing to expert annotations. Quantitative experiments and qualitative analysis show that our deconfounded model consistently aligns better with expert rationales than baselines trained for prediction only. We further contribute a set of reference expert annotations to the validation and testing partitions of an existing benchmark dataset of European Court of Human Rights cases.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the development of Legal Artificial Intelligence (Legal AI) in recent years, enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of legal tasks. To advance research and applications of LLM-based approaches in legal domain, this paper provides a comprehensive review of 16 legal LLMs series and 47 LLM-based frameworks for legal tasks, and also gather 15 benchmarks and 29 datasets to evaluate different legal capabilities. Additionally, we analyse the challenges and discuss future directions for LLM-based approaches in the legal domain. We hope this paper provides a systematic introduction for beginners and encourages future research in this field. Resources are available at https://github.com/ZhitianHou/LLMs4LegalAI.

The successful analysis of argumentative techniques from user-generated text is central to many downstream tasks such as political and market analysis. Recent argument mining tools use state-of-the-art deep learning methods to extract and annotate argumentative techniques from various online text corpora, however each task is treated as separate and different bespoke models are fine-tuned for each dataset. We show that different argument mining tasks share common semantic and logical structure by implementing a multi-task approach to argument mining that achieves better performance than state-of-the-art methods for the same problems. Our model builds a shared representation of the input text that is common to all tasks and exploits similarities between tasks in order to further boost performance via parameter-sharing. Our results are important for argument mining as they show that different tasks share substantial similarities and suggest a holistic approach to the extraction of argumentative techniques from text.

AI systems are increasingly governed by natural language principles, yet a key challenge arising from reliance on language remains underexplored: interpretive ambiguity. As in legal systems, ambiguity arises both from how these principles are written and how they are applied. But while legal systems use institutional safeguards to manage such ambiguity, such as transparent appellate review policing interpretive constraints, AI alignment pipelines offer no comparable protections. Different interpretations of the same rule can lead to inconsistent or unstable model behavior. Drawing on legal theory, we identify key gaps in current alignment pipelines by examining how legal systems constrain ambiguity at both the rule creation and rule application steps. We then propose a computational framework that mirrors two legal mechanisms: (1) a rule refinement pipeline that minimizes interpretive disagreement by revising ambiguous rules (analogous to agency rulemaking or iterative legislative action), and (2) prompt-based interpretive constraints that reduce inconsistency in rule application (analogous to legal canons that guide judicial discretion). We evaluate our framework on a 5,000-scenario subset of the WildChat dataset and show that both interventions significantly improve judgment consistency across a panel of reasonable interpreters. Our approach offers a first step toward systematically managing interpretive ambiguity, an essential step for building more robust, law-following AI systems.

Despite the remarkable performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in natural language processing tasks, they still struggle with generating logically sound arguments, resulting in potential risks such as spreading misinformation. To address this issue, we introduce FIPO, a fallacy-informed framework that leverages preference optimization methods to steer LLMs toward logically sound arguments. FIPO includes a classification loss, to capture the fine-grained information on fallacy types. Our results on argumentation datasets show that our method reduces the fallacy errors by up to 17.5%. Furthermore, our human evaluation results indicate that the quality of the generated arguments by our method significantly outperforms the fine-tuned baselines, as well as other preference optimization methods, such as DPO. These findings highlight the importance of ensuring models are aware of logical fallacies for effective argument generation. Our code is available at github.com/lucamouchel/Logical-Fallacies.

This paper presents our system description and error analysis of our entry for NLLP 2024 shared task on Legal Natural Language Inference (L-NLI) hagag2024legallenssharedtask2024. The task required classifying these relationships as entailed, contradicted, or neutral, indicating any association between the review and the complaint. Our system emerged as the winning submission, significantly outperforming other entries with a substantial margin and demonstrating the effectiveness of our approach in legal text analysis. We provide a detailed analysis of the strengths and limitations of each model and approach tested, along with a thorough error analysis and suggestions for future improvements. This paper aims to contribute to the growing field of legal NLP by offering insights into advanced techniques for natural language inference in legal contexts, making it accessible to both experts and newcomers in the field.

In this paper, we present and implement a multi-dimensional, modular framework for performing deep argument analysis (DeepA2) using current pre-trained language models (PTLMs). ArgumentAnalyst -- a T5 model (Raffel et al. 2020) set up and trained within DeepA2 -- reconstructs argumentative texts, which advance an informal argumentation, as valid arguments: It inserts, e.g., missing premises and conclusions, formalizes inferences, and coherently links the logical reconstruction to the source text. We create a synthetic corpus for deep argument analysis, and evaluate ArgumentAnalyst on this new dataset as well as on existing data, specifically EntailmentBank (Dalvi et al. 2021). Our empirical findings vindicate the overall framework and highlight the advantages of a modular design, in particular its ability to emulate established heuristics (such as hermeneutic cycles), to explore the model's uncertainty, to cope with the plurality of correct solutions (underdetermination), and to exploit higher-order evidence.

The ability to generate counterarguments is important for critical thinking and balanced discourse, yet existing approaches typically produce only a single counterargument, failing to capture the diversity and persuasiveness required in real-world debates. To address this limitation, we propose Persona-guided Tree-based Counterargument Generation (PTCG), a framework that combines Tree-of-Thoughts-inspired step-wise generation and pruning with speaker persona selection. By estimating the author's persona from the original argument and incorporating speaker personas representing distinct perspectives, PTCG operationalizes perspective-taking and enables the generation of diverse counterarguments. Results from LLM-as-a-Judge, classifier-based assessment, and human evaluations indicate that PTCG shows consistent improvements in both the diversity and persuasiveness of counterarguments compared to baseline methods.

Statutory reasoning refers to the application of legislative provisions to a series of case facts described in natural language. We re-frame statutory reasoning as an analogy task, where each instance of the analogy task involves a combination of two instances of statutory reasoning. This increases the dataset size by two orders of magnitude, and introduces an element of interpretability. We show that this task is roughly as difficult to Natural Language Processing models as the original task. Finally, we come back to statutory reasoning, solving it with a combination of a retrieval mechanism and analogy models, and showing some progress on prior comparable work.

We present the Legal Passage Retrieval Dataset LePaRD. LePaRD is a massive collection of U.S. federal judicial citations to precedent in context. The dataset aims to facilitate work on legal passage prediction, a challenging practice-oriented legal retrieval and reasoning task. Legal passage prediction seeks to predict relevant passages from precedential court decisions given the context of a legal argument. We extensively evaluate various retrieval approaches on LePaRD, and find that classification appears to work best. However, we note that legal precedent prediction is a difficult task, and there remains significant room for improvement. We hope that by publishing LePaRD, we will encourage others to engage with a legal NLP task that promises to help expand access to justice by reducing the burden associated with legal research. A subset of the LePaRD dataset is freely available and the whole dataset will be released upon publication.

Large Language Models (LLM) have achieved remarkable performances in general domains and are now extending into the expert domain of law. Several benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate LLMs' legal capabilities. However, these benchmarks fail to evaluate open-ended and provision-grounded Question Answering (QA). To address this, we introduce a Korean Benchmark for Legal EXplainable QA (KoBLEX), designed to evaluate provision-grounded, multi-hop legal reasoning. KoBLEX includes 226 scenario-based QA instances and their supporting provisions, created using a hybrid LLM-human expert pipeline. We also propose a method called Parametric provision-guided Selection Retrieval (ParSeR), which uses LLM-generated parametric provisions to guide legally grounded and reliable answers. ParSeR facilitates multi-hop reasoning on complex legal questions by generating parametric provisions and employing a three-stage sequential retrieval process. Furthermore, to better evaluate the legal fidelity of the generated answers, we propose Legal Fidelity Evaluation (LF-Eval). LF-Eval is an automatic metric that jointly considers the question, answer, and supporting provisions and shows a high correlation with human judgments. Experimental results show that ParSeR consistently outperforms strong baselines, achieving the best results across multiple LLMs. Notably, compared to standard retrieval with GPT-4o, ParSeR achieves +37.91 higher F1 and +30.81 higher LF-Eval. Further analyses reveal that ParSeR efficiently delivers consistent performance across reasoning depths, with ablations confirming the effectiveness of ParSeR.

The Four-Element Theory is a fundamental framework in criminal law, defining the constitution of crime through four dimensions: Subject, Object, Subjective aspect, and Objective aspect. This theory is widely referenced in legal reasoning, and many Large Language Models (LLMs) attempt to incorporate it when handling legal tasks. However, current approaches rely on LLMs' internal knowledge to incorporate this theory, often lacking completeness and representativeness. To address this limitation, we introduce JUREX-4E, an expert-annotated knowledge base covering 155 criminal charges. It is structured through a progressive hierarchical annotation framework that prioritizes legal source validity and employs diverse legal interpretation methods to ensure comprehensiveness and authority. We evaluate JUREX-4E on the Similar Charge Distinction task and apply it to Legal Case Retrieval, demonstrating its effectiveness in improving LLM performance. Experimental results validate the high quality of JUREX-4E and its substantial impact on downstream legal tasks, underscoring its potential for advancing legal AI applications. Code: https://github.com/THUlawtech/JUREX

Despite their tremendous success in many applications, large language models often fall short of consistent reasoning and planning in various (language, embodied, and social) scenarios, due to inherent limitations in their inference, learning, and modeling capabilities. In this position paper, we present a new perspective of machine reasoning, LAW, that connects the concepts of Language models, Agent models, and World models, for more robust and versatile reasoning capabilities. In particular, we propose that world and agent models are a better abstraction of reasoning, that introduces the crucial elements of deliberate human-like reasoning, including beliefs about the world and other agents, anticipation of consequences, goals/rewards, and strategic planning. Crucially, language models in LAW serve as a backend to implement the system or its elements and hence provide the computational power and adaptability. We review the recent studies that have made relevant progress and discuss future research directions towards operationalizing the LAW framework.

A common task in legal Information Retrieval (IR) is to find relevant legal sources from case-law collections. While legal practice often requires pinpoint citations (pincites) to specific case paragraphs, most existing public legal IR datasets lack paragraph-level citation annotations. Yet, publicly available datasets with such information contain data leakage in the query text and exclude paragraphs that are neither citing nor cited from the corpora, creating an unrealistic and oversimplified retrieval setting, potentially leading to inflated performance. To address these limitations, we contribute a large-scale legal IR dataset constructed from Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgments. The dataset contains: (i) masked case/paragraph queries, with removed citation information; (ii) a corpus that includes all paragraphs; and (iii) case- and paragraph-level ground-truth citations, with partial human expert validation. Our dataset supports both the development and rigorous evaluation of legal IR methods, at multiple query-document levels (case-to-case, paragraph-to-case, and paragraph-to-paragraph retrieval). Link to dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/theresiavr/legalpincite

A sound judgment applies the law to established facts and weighs the circumstances in which they arose. However, existing methods swing between rigid statute matching and ungrounded discretion, benchmarks score a label or a rubric, and the experience that would supply the balance stays unverified. We formalize legal judgment as a reference-anchored task, whose object is a single decision that stays tied to the statute and to the circumstances at once. We introduce JusticeAxis, 256 real-world criminal cases from 18 countries with audio, image, and text evidence, and three lawyer-written judgments for every case: the recorded one and one for each failure. We further propose JusticeAgent, a harness whose element agents establish the facts and whose judge agent applies the law under skills carrying experience of the circumstances. Skills are distilled from execution trajectories and admitted only under Bayesian credible bounds. Experiments show that failure turns direction with scale: open-weight backbones drift to unsupported grounds, frontier models to the statutory default. We further verify that JusticeAgent, as a simple yet effective plugin, carries a frozen open-weight backbone to commercial level. Project resources are available at https://github.com/beita6969/JusticeAxis.

In populous countries, pending legal cases have been growing exponentially. There is a need for developing NLP-based techniques for processing and automatically understanding legal documents. To promote research in the area of Legal NLP we organized the shared task LegalEval - Understanding Legal Texts at SemEval 2023. LegalEval task has three sub-tasks: Task-A (Rhetorical Roles Labeling) is about automatically structuring legal documents into semantically coherent units, Task-B (Legal Named Entity Recognition) deals with identifying relevant entities in a legal document and Task-C (Court Judgement Prediction with Explanation) explores the possibility of automatically predicting the outcome of a legal case along with providing an explanation for the prediction. In total 26 teams (approx. 100 participants spread across the world) submitted systems paper. In each of the sub-tasks, the proposed systems outperformed the baselines; however, there is a lot of scope for improvement. This paper describes the tasks, and analyzes techniques proposed by various teams.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in complex reasoning tasks but struggle with consistent rule application, exception handling, and explainability, particularly in domains like legal analysis that require both natural language understanding and precise logical inference. This paper introduces a structured prompting framework that decomposes reasoning into three verifiable steps: entity identification, property extraction, and symbolic rule application. By integrating neural and symbolic approaches, our method leverages LLMs' interpretive flexibility while ensuring logical consistency through formal verification. The framework externalizes task definitions, enabling domain experts to refine logical structures without altering the architecture. Evaluated on the LegalBench hearsay determination task, our approach significantly outperformed baselines, with OpenAI o-family models showing substantial improvements - o1 achieving an F1 score of 0.929 and o3-mini reaching 0.867 using structured decomposition with complementary predicates, compared to their few-shot baselines of 0.714 and 0.74 respectively. This hybrid neural-symbolic system offers a promising pathway for transparent and consistent rule-based reasoning, suggesting potential for explainable AI applications in structured legal reasoning tasks.

In legal NLP, Case Outcome Classification (COC) must not only be accurate but also trustworthy and explainable. Existing work in explainable COC has been limited to annotations by a single expert. However, it is well-known that lawyers may disagree in their assessment of case facts. We hence collect a novel dataset RAVE: Rationale Variation in ECHR1, which is obtained from two experts in the domain of international human rights law, for whom we observe weak agreement. We study their disagreements and build a two-level task-independent taxonomy, supplemented with COC-specific subcategories. To our knowledge, this is the first work in the legal NLP that focuses on human label variation. We quantitatively assess different taxonomy categories and find that disagreements mainly stem from underspecification of the legal context, which poses challenges given the typically limited granularity and noise in COC metadata. We further assess the explainablility of SOTA COC models on RAVE and observe limited agreement between models and experts. Overall, our case study reveals hitherto underappreciated complexities in creating benchmark datasets in legal NLP that revolve around identifying aspects of a case's facts supposedly relevant to its outcome.

Long-form legal reasoning remains a key challenge for large language models (LLMs) in spite of recent advances in test-time scaling. We introduce LEXam, a novel benchmark derived from 340 law exams spanning 116 law school courses across a range of subjects and degree levels. The dataset comprises 4,886 law exam questions in English and German, including 2,841 long-form, open-ended questions and 2,045 multiple-choice questions. Besides reference answers, the open questions are also accompanied by explicit guidance outlining the expected legal reasoning approach such as issue spotting, rule recall, or rule application. Our evaluation on both open-ended and multiple-choice questions present significant challenges for current LLMs; in particular, they notably struggle with open questions that require structured, multi-step legal reasoning. Moreover, our results underscore the effectiveness of the dataset in differentiating between models with varying capabilities. Adopting an LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm with rigorous human expert validation, we demonstrate how model-generated reasoning steps can be evaluated consistently and accurately. Our evaluation setup provides a scalable method to assess legal reasoning quality beyond simple accuracy metrics. Project page: https://lexam-benchmark.github.io/

In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called attitude roots, i.e., underlying beliefs and world views, and their corresponding attitude themes. Given the strength of these latent drivers of arguments, recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning (e.g., falsifying given premises), one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu 'soft' combat system (Hornsey and Fielding, 2017): first, identify an arguer's attitude roots and themes, and then choose a prototypical rebuttal that is aligned with those drivers instead of invalidating those. In this work, we are the first to explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation. To this end, we enrich an existing dataset for discourse structure in peer reviews with attitude roots, attitude themes, and canonical rebuttals. To facilitate this process, we recast established annotation concepts from the domain of peer reviews (e.g., aspects a review sentence is relating to) and train domain-specific models. We then propose strong rebuttal generation strategies, which we benchmark on our novel dataset for the task of end-to-end attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation and two subtasks.

Annotation and classification of legal text are central components of empirical legal research. Traditionally, these tasks are often delegated to trained research assistants. Motivated by the advances in language modeling, empirical legal scholars are increasingly turning to prompting commercial models, hoping that it will alleviate the significant cost of human annotation. Despite growing use, our understanding of how to best utilize large language models for legal tasks remains limited. We conduct a comprehensive study of 260 legal text classification tasks, nearly all new to the machine learning community. Starting from GPT-4 as a baseline, we show that it has non-trivial but highly varied zero-shot accuracy, often exhibiting performance that may be insufficient for legal work. We then demonstrate that a lightly fine-tuned Llama 3 model vastly outperforms GPT-4 on almost all tasks, typically by double-digit percentage points. We find that larger models respond better to fine-tuning than smaller models. A few tens to hundreds of examples suffice to achieve high classification accuracy. Notably, we can fine-tune a single model on all 260 tasks simultaneously at a small loss in accuracy relative to having a separate model for each task. Our work points to a viable alternative to the predominant practice of prompting commercial models. For concrete legal tasks with some available labeled data, researchers are better off using a fine-tuned open-source model.

Recent work within the Argument Mining community has shown the applicability of Natural Language Processing systems for solving problems found within competitive debate. One of the most important tasks within competitive debate is for debaters to create high quality debate cases. We show that effective debate cases can be constructed using constrained shortest path traversals on Argumentative Semantic Knowledge Graphs. We study this potential in the context of a type of American Competitive Debate, called Policy Debate, which already has a large scale dataset targeting it called DebateSum. We significantly improve upon DebateSum by introducing 53180 new examples, as well as further useful metadata for every example, to the dataset. We leverage the txtai semantic search and knowledge graph toolchain to produce and contribute 9 semantic knowledge graphs built on this dataset. We create a unique method for evaluating which knowledge graphs are better in the context of producing policy debate cases. A demo which automatically generates debate cases, along with all other code and the Knowledge Graphs, are open-sourced and made available to the public here: https://github.com/Hellisotherpeople/DebateKG

Attorneys, judges, and pro se filers increasingly use AI to draft legal documents, yet these tools frequently fabricate citations. Despite predictions that newer models would hallucinate less or that court sanctions would deter negligent filers, we found over 1,000 filings containing fabricated citations---with this number growing year-over-year. This study evaluates whether AI-based systems can mitigate these errors by automatically detecting hallucinations. We propose a taxonomy of legal citation hallucinations grounded in actual court filings and introduce a dataset of 1,300 brief excerpts containing injected errors. Benchmarking five models in agentic and non-agentic settings as well as Claude Code reveals that while the latest iterations perform better---GPT-5 achieves 84.4% recall and a 55.0% F1 score in an agentic framework---all models struggle with subtle error categories. Agentic verification remains resource-intensive, with GPT-5 averaging 15.3 steps per excerpt. Furthermore, restricted information access limits the efficacy of even the best agents. This gap creates policy concerns, as it disadvantages both AI systems and litigants who lack subscriptions to commercial legal databases. Together, our dataset, tools, and policy recommendations provide a foundation for building and auditing reliable legal citation checking tools.

In this paper, we present a simulation system called AgentCourt that simulates the entire courtroom process. The judge, plaintiff's lawyer, defense lawyer, and other participants are autonomous agents driven by large language models (LLMs). Our core goal is to enable lawyer agents to learn how to argue a case, as well as improving their overall legal skills, through courtroom process simulation. To achieve this goal, we propose an adversarial evolutionary approach for the lawyer-agent. Since AgentCourt can simulate the occurrence and development of court hearings based on a knowledge base and LLM, the lawyer agents can continuously learn and accumulate experience from real court cases. The simulation experiments show that after two lawyer-agents have engaged in a thousand adversarial legal cases in AgentCourt (which can take a decade for real-world lawyers), compared to their pre-evolutionary state, the evolved lawyer agents exhibit consistent improvement in their ability to handle legal tasks. To enhance the credibility of our experimental results, we enlisted a panel of professional lawyers to evaluate our simulations. The evaluation indicates that the evolved lawyer agents exhibit notable advancements in responsiveness, as well as expertise and logical rigor. This work paves the way for advancing LLM-driven agent technology in legal scenarios. Code is available at https://github.com/relic-yuexi/AgentCourt.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances large language models by incorporating external knowledge, yet suffers from critical limitations in high-stakes domains -- namely, sensitivity to noisy or contradictory evidence and opaque, stochastic decision-making. We propose ArgRAG, an explainable, and contestable alternative that replaces black-box reasoning with structured inference using a Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework (QBAF). ArgRAG constructs a QBAF from retrieved documents and performs deterministic reasoning under gradual semantics. This allows faithfully explaining and contesting decisions. Evaluated on two fact verification benchmarks, PubHealth and RAGuard, ArgRAG achieves strong accuracy while significantly improving transparency.

Legal Prompt Engineering (LPE) or Legal Prompting is a process to guide and assist a large language model (LLM) with performing a natural legal language processing (NLLP) skill. Our goal is to use LPE with LLMs over long legal documents for the Legal Judgement Prediction (LJP) task. We investigate the performance of zero-shot LPE for given facts in case-texts from the European Court of Human Rights (in English) and the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland (in German, French and Italian). Our results show that zero-shot LPE is better compared to the baselines, but it still falls short compared to current state of the art supervised approaches. Nevertheless, the results are important, since there was 1) no explicit domain-specific data used - so we show that the transfer to the legal domain is possible for general-purpose LLMs, and 2) the LLMs where directly applied without any further training or fine-tuning - which in turn saves immensely in terms of additional computational costs.

Identifying the quality of free-text arguments has become an important task in the rapidly expanding field of computational argumentation. In this work, we explore the challenging task of argument quality ranking. To this end, we created a corpus of 30,497 arguments carefully annotated for point-wise quality, released as part of this work. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest dataset annotated for point-wise argument quality, larger by a factor of five than previously released datasets. Moreover, we address the core issue of inducing a labeled score from crowd annotations by performing a comprehensive evaluation of different approaches to this problem. In addition, we analyze the quality dimensions that characterize this dataset. Finally, we present a neural method for argument quality ranking, which outperforms several baselines on our own dataset, as well as previous methods published for another dataset.

The advent of large language models (LLMs) has led to significant achievements in various domains, including legal text processing. Leveraging LLMs for legal tasks is a natural evolution and an increasingly compelling choice. However, their capabilities are often portrayed as greater than they truly are. Despite the progress, we are still far from the ultimate goal of fully automating legal tasks using artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP). Moreover, legal systems are deeply domain-specific and exhibit substantial variation across different countries and languages. The need for building legal text processing applications for different natural languages is, therefore, large and urgent. However, there is a big challenge for legal NLP in low-resource languages such as Vietnamese due to the scarcity of resources and annotated data. The need for labeled legal corpora for supervised training, validation, and supervised fine-tuning is critical. In this paper, we introduce the VLQA dataset, a comprehensive and high-quality resource tailored for the Vietnamese legal domain. We also conduct a comprehensive statistical analysis of the dataset and evaluate its effectiveness through experiments with state-of-the-art models on legal information retrieval and question-answering tasks.

The rapid propagation of misinformation poses substantial risks to public interest. To combat misinformation, large language models (LLMs) are adapted to automatically verify claim credibility. Nevertheless, existing methods heavily rely on the embedded knowledge within LLMs and / or black-box APIs for evidence collection, leading to subpar performance with smaller LLMs or upon unreliable context. In this paper, we propose retrieval augmented fact verification through the synthesis of contrasting arguments (RAFTS). Upon input claims, RAFTS starts with evidence retrieval, where we design a retrieval pipeline to collect and re-rank relevant documents from verifiable sources. Then, RAFTS forms contrastive arguments (i.e., supporting or refuting) conditioned on the retrieved evidence. In addition, RAFTS leverages an embedding model to identify informative demonstrations, followed by in-context prompting to generate the prediction and explanation. Our method effectively retrieves relevant documents as evidence and evaluates arguments from varying perspectives, incorporating nuanced information for fine-grained decision-making. Combined with informative in-context examples as prior, RAFTS achieves significant improvements to supervised and LLM baselines without complex prompts. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method through extensive experiments, where RAFTS can outperform GPT-based methods with a significantly smaller 7B LLM.

This paper takes a first step towards a critical thinking curriculum for neural auto-regressive language models. We introduce a synthetic corpus of deductively valid arguments, and generate artificial argumentative texts to train and evaluate GPT-2. Significant transfer learning effects can be observed: Training a model on three simple core schemes allows it to accurately complete conclusions of different, and more complex types of arguments, too. The language models generalize the core argument schemes in a correct way. Moreover, we obtain consistent and promising results for NLU benchmarks. In particular, pre-training on the argument schemes raises zero-shot accuracy on the GLUE diagnostics by up to 15 percentage points. The findings suggest that intermediary pre-training on texts that exemplify basic reasoning abilities (such as typically covered in critical thinking textbooks) might help language models to acquire a broad range of reasoning skills. The synthetic argumentative texts presented in this paper are a promising starting point for building such a "critical thinking curriculum for language models."