REVIEW 1 cited by
BLT: Can Large Language Models Handle Basic Legal Text?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
We find that the best publicly available LLMs like GPT-4 and Claude currently perform poorly on basic legal text handling. This motivates the creation of a benchmark consisting of examples that lawyers and paralegals would expect LLMs to handle zero-shot, such as looking up the text at a line of a witness deposition or at a subsection of a contract. LLMs' poor performance on this benchmark casts into doubt their reliability as-is for legal practice. However, fine-tuning on our training set brings even a small model to near-perfect performance. This benchmark will be useful for fine-tuning LLMs for downstream legal tasks, as well as for tracking LLMs' reliability as-is for basic legal tasks.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Evaluating LLM-based Approaches to Legal Citation Prediction: Domain-specific Pre-training, Fine-tuning, or RAG? A Benchmark and an Australian Law Case Study
The paper releases the AusLaw Citation Benchmark and shows that instruction-tuned 7B-8B LLMs plus retrieval re-ranking outperform general and law-specific pretrained LLMs for legal citation prediction, reaching about ...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.