paper-with-me

홈 › Papers

LEXam: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning on 340 Law Exams

2025-05-19 · Yu Fan, Jingwei Ni, Jakob Merane, Etienne Salimbeni, Yang Tian, Yoan Hermstrüwer, Yinya Huang, Mubashara Akhtar, Florian Geering, Oliver Dreyer, Daniel Brunner, Markus Leippold, Mrinmaya Sachan, Alexander Stremitzer, Christoph Engel, Elliott Ash, Joel Niklaus

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/

📄 PDF Abstract BibTeX arXiv:2505.12864

Code (0)

등록된 구현이 없습니다.

Tasks

BenchmarkingLegal ReasoningMultiple-choice

Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반

Evaluating the Limits of Large Language Models in Multilingual Legal Reasoning

2025-09-26 · Antreas Ioannou, Andreas Shiamishis, Nora Hollenstein, Nezihe Merve Gürel arxiv

In an era dominated by Large Language Models (LLMs), understanding their capabilities and limitations, especially in high-stakes fields like law, is crucial. While LLMs such as Meta's LLaMA, OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Ge…

Adversarial RobustnessLegal Reasoning

GradeLegal: Automated Grading for German Legal Cases

2026-05-20 · Abdullah Al Zubaer, Lorenz Wendlinger, Simon Alexander Nonn, Michael Granitzer 외 arxiv

Grading German legal exam solutions faces growing volumes and a shortage of qualified graders, delaying feedback and creating a bottleneck. At the same time, it is a high-stakes expert task, since state exam grades stron…

Legal Reasoning Is Not Lawyering: Rethinking Legal Benchmarks for Pro Se Access to Justice

2026-06-16 · Andrew Lou, David Shin arxiv

Legal AI benchmark research frequently invokes the assumption that large language models can improve access to justice, including for people who cannot access lawyers in order to understand and exercise their legal right…

Legal Reasoning

Passing the Brazilian OAB Exam: data preparation and some experiments

2017-12-14 · Pedro Delfino, Bruno Cuconato, Edward Hermann Haeusler, Alexandre Rademaker

In Brazil, all legal professionals must demonstrate their knowledge of the law and its application by passing the OAB exams, the national bar exams. The OAB exams therefore provide an excellent benchmark for the performa…

Legal Reasoning

RoD-TAL: A Benchmark for Answering Questions in Romanian Driving License Exams

2025-07-25 · Andrei Vlad Man, Răzvan-Alexandru Smădu, Cristian-George Craciun, Dumitru-Clementin Cercel 외 arxiv

The intersection of AI and legal systems presents a growing need for tools that support legal education, particularly in under-resourced languages such as Romanian. In this work, we aim to evaluate the capabilities of La…

Information RetrievalQuestion Answering