OpenExempt: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Legal Reasoning and a Framework for Creating Custom Benchmarks on Demand
Reasoning benchmarks have played a crucial role in the progress of language models. Yet rigorous evaluation remains a significant challenge as static question-answer pairs provide only a snapshot of performance, compressing complex behavior into a single accuracy metric. This limitation is especially true in complex, rule-bound domains such as law, where existing benchmarks are costly to build and ill suited for isolating specific failure modes. To address this, we introduce OpenExempt, a framework and benchmark for diagnostic evaluation of legal reasoning. The OpenExempt Framework uses expert-crafted symbolic representations of U.S. Bankruptcy Code statutes to dynamically generate a large space of natural language reasoning tasks and their machine-computable solutions on demand. This gives users fine-grained control over task complexity and scope, allowing individual reasoning skills to be probed in isolation. Using this system, we construct the OpenExempt Benchmark, a diagnostic benchmark for legal reasoning with 9,765 samples across nine evaluation suites designed to carefully probe model capabilities. Experiments on 13 diverse language models reveal sharp performance cliffs that emerge only under longer reasoning paths and in the presence of obfuscating statements. We release the framework and benchmark publicly to support research aimed at understanding and improving the next generation of reasoning systems.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Legal ReasoningSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
LexRubric: A Rubric-Guided Diagnostic Benchmark for Open-Ended Legal Tasks
As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to real-world legal tasks, evaluating the reliability of their open-ended legal responses has become essential. These tasks require context-sensitive answers and a…
Legal ReasoningLexAgentHallu: A Hierarchical Benchmark for Profiling Hallucinations in Legal Agents
As large language models are increasingly deployed as tool-augmented legal agents, they introduce agentic hallucinations where tool-call and reasoning errors cascade into fabricated holdings and miscited authority. Howev…
AR-BENCH: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning with Judgment Error Detection, Classification and Correction
Legal judgments may contain errors due to the complexity of case circumstances and the abstract nature of legal concepts, while existing appellate review mechanisms face efficiency pressures from a surge in case volumes.…
Anomaly DetectionLegal ReasoningDLawBench: Evaluating LLMs Through Multi-Turn Legal Consultation
Lawyer-client consultation is a critical starting point for legal services. Effective legal assistance hinges on eliciting sufficient and truthful information from clients in order to devise strategies that best protect …
Legal ReasoningLexChain: Modeling Legal Reasoning Chains for Chinese Tort Case Analysis
Legal reasoning is a fundamental component of legal analysis and decision-making. Existing computational approaches to legal reasoning predominantly rely on generic reasoning frameworks such as syllogism, which do not co…
Legal Reasoning