paper-with-me

Papers

LeMAJ (Legal LLM-as-a-Judge): Bridging Legal Reasoning and LLM Evaluation

2025-10-08 · Joseph Enguehard, Morgane Van Ermengem, Kate Atkinson, Sujeong Cha, Arijit Ghosh Chowdhury, Prashanth Kallur Ramaswamy, Jeremy Roghair, Hannah R Marlowe, Carina Suzana Negreanu, Kitty Boxall, Diana Mincu arxiv

Evaluating large language model (LLM) outputs in the legal domain presents unique challenges due to the complex and nuanced nature of legal analysis. Current evaluation approaches either depend on reference data, which is costly to produce, or use standardized assessment methods, both of which have significant limitations for legal applications. Although LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising evaluation technique, its reliability and effectiveness in legal contexts depend heavily on evaluation processes unique to the legal industry and how trustworthy the evaluation appears to the human legal expert. This is where existing evaluation methods currently fail and exhibit considerable variability. This paper aims to close the gap: a) we break down lengthy responses into 'Legal Data Points' (LDPs), self-contained units of information, and introduce a novel, reference-free evaluation methodology that reflects how lawyers evaluate legal answers; b) we demonstrate that our method outperforms a variety of baselines on both our proprietary dataset and an open-source dataset (LegalBench); c) we show how our method correlates more closely with human expert evaluations and helps improve inter-annotator agreement; and finally d) we open source our Legal Data Points for a subset of LegalBench used in our experiments, allowing the research community to replicate our results and advance research in this vital area of LLM evaluation on legal question-answering.

📄 PDF Abstract BibTeX arXiv:2510.07243

Code (0)

등록된 구현이 없습니다.

Tasks

Legal Reasoning

Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반

Enhancing Judgment Document Generation via Agentic Legal Information Collection and Rubric-Guided Optimization

2026-05-03 · Weihang Su, Xuanyi Chen, Yueyue Wu, Qingyao Ai 외 arxiv

Automating the drafting of judgment documents is pivotal to judicial efficiency, yet it remains challenging due to the dual requirements of comprehensive retrieval of legal information and rigorous logical reasoning. Exi…

Reinforcement LearningLogical ReasoningLegal Reasoning

BenGER: Benchmarking LLM Systems on Subsumption-Based Legal Reasoning in German Law

2026-05-27 · Sebastian Nagl, Ann-Kristin Mayrhofer, Martin Heidebach, Aleyna Koçak 외 arxiv

We introduce BenGER (Benchmark for German Law), a benchmark and dataset for evaluating LLM systems on subsumption-based legal reasoning in German law. The dataset combines 596 exam-style free-text legal case tasks across…

Legal Reasoning

LegalChainReasoner: A Legal Chain-guided Framework for Criminal Judicial Opinion Generation

2025-08-31 · Weizhe Shi, Qiqi Wang, Yihong Pan, Qian Liu 외 arxiv

A criminal judicial opinion represents the judge's disposition of a case, including the decision rationale and sentencing. Automatically generating such opinions can assist in analyzing sentencing consistency and provide…

Legal Reasoning

Bridging Law and Data: Augmenting Reasoning via a Semi-Structured Dataset with IRAC methodology

2024-06-19 · Xiaoxi Kang, Lizhen Qu, Lay-Ki Soon, Zhuang Li 외

The effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in legal reasoning is often limited due to the unique legal terminologies and the necessity for highly specialized knowledge. These limitations highlight the need for hig…

Legal ReasoningRetrieval

Towards Explainability in Legal Outcome Prediction Models

2024-03-25 · Josef Valvoda, Ryan Cotterell

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