CaseFacts: A Benchmark for Legal Fact-Checking and Precedent Retrieval
Automated Fact-Checking has largely focused on verifying general knowledge against static corpora, overlooking high-stakes domains like law where truth is evolving and technically complex. We introduce CaseFacts, a benchmark for verifying colloquial legal claims against U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Unlike existing resources that map formal texts to formal texts, CaseFacts challenges systems to bridge the semantic gap between layperson assertions and technical jurisprudence while accounting for temporal validity. The dataset consists of 6,294 claims categorized as Supported, Refuted, or Overruled. We construct this benchmark using a multi-stage pipeline that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to synthesize claims from expert case summaries, employing a novel semantic similarity heuristic to efficiently identify and verify complex legal overrulings. Experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs reveal that the task remains challenging; notably, augmenting models with unrestricted web search degrades performance compared to closed-book baselines due to the retrieval of noisy, non-authoritative precedents. We release CaseFacts to spur research into legal fact verification systems.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Semantic SimilarityGeneral KnowledgeFact VerificationSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Precedent-Enhanced Legal Judgment Prediction with LLM and Domain-Model Collaboration
Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) has become an increasingly crucial task in Legal AI, i.e., predicting the judgment of the case in terms of case fact description. Precedents are the previous legal cases with similar facts…
A Multi-Task Benchmark for Korean Legal Language Understanding and Judgement Prediction
The recent advances of deep learning have dramatically changed how machine learning, especially in the domain of natural language processing, can be applied to legal domain. However, this shift to the data-driven approac…
Language ModellingKorean Canonical Legal Benchmark: Toward Knowledge-Independent Evaluation of LLMs' Legal Reasoning Capabilities
We introduce the Korean Canonical Legal Benchmark (KCL), a benchmark designed to assess language models' legal reasoning capabilities independently of domain-specific knowledge. KCL provides question-level supporting pre…
Legal ReasoningLegal Rule Induction: Towards Generalizable Principle Discovery from Analogous Judicial Precedents
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 adv…
HallucinationTowards Explainability in Legal Outcome Prediction Models
Current legal outcome prediction models - a staple of legal NLP - do not explain their reasoning. However, to employ these models in the real world, human legal actors need to be able to understand the model's decisions.…
Prediction