LawGPT: Knowledge-Guided Data Generation and Its Application to Legal LLM

Jiang-Xin Shi; Kun-Yang Yu; Lan-Zhe Guo; Pengxiao Song; Shi-Yu Tian; Xiao-Wen Yang; Yi-Xuan Jin; Yu-Feng Li; Zhi Zhou

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

LawGPT: Knowledge-Guided Data Generation and Its Application to Legal LLM

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a 3B open-source model, LawGPT, fine-tuned on 50K knowledge-guided synthetic legal examples, outperforms legal-specific LLMs up to 33B and approaches proprietary LLMs on four Chinese legal reasoning tasks.

desk verdict Solid pipeline paper with real ablation evidence, but the headline comparison needs a contamination check and a real-data baseline before its numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06572 v2 pith:DYEMJX5J submitted 2025-02-10 cs.CL cs.AI

Zhi Zhou , Kun-Yang Yu , Shi-Yu Tian , Xiao-Wen Yang , Jiang-Xin Shi , Pengxiao Song , Yi-Xuan Jin , Lan-Zhe Guo

show 1 more author

Yu-Feng Li

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.AI

keywords legalreasoninglargelanguagemodelssyntheticdatagenerationknowledge-guidedLLMdomainadaptationfine-tuningChinesetasks

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a small open-source model can reach near-proprietary legal reasoning ability if it is trained on synthetic data generated with legal knowledge. It proposes KgDG, a pipeline that samples real legal documents, writes new question-answer pairs with reasoning and references, repairs wrong references and flawed reasoning, filters unverifiable drafts, and trains the model on both direct and step-by-step answers. Using this pipeline on 50K generated examples, the authors report that LawGPT, a 3B fine-tuned model, outperforms legal-specific LLMs of 7B to 33B and scores close to GPT-4 and DeepSeek V3 on four Chinese legal reasoning tasks. If the result holds, it matters because legal AI could be built on open weights, with lower inference cost and fewer data-privacy concerns than calling a proprietary API for every query.

What carries the argument

The mechanism carrying the argument is the KgDG pipeline (Knowledge-Guided Data Generation). It couples a Knowledge-Aware Sampler, which selects legal documents and seed problems to keep synthetic questions diverse and grounded, with a Knowledge-Guided Writer that drafts question-answer pairs along with legal references and reasoning paths. The Knowledge-Guide Fixer then corrects wrong statute citations and faulty reasoning, and the Data Verifier filters out examples whose answers cannot be derived from the corrected references and reasoning. Mixture Training completes the mechanism by formatting each verified example twice, once as a direct answer and once with explicit reasoning, so fine-tuning teaches both efficient answering and step-by-step legal computation.

What would settle it

Have independent legal professionals check a random sample of, say, 500 examples from the released 50K dataset to see whether each cited law exists, each citation matches its stated content, and each legal and arithmetic conclusion is correct; any substantive share of false citations among DAVER-verified examples would falsify the data-quality claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that knowledge-guided synthetic data can substitute for scarce, expensive human legal annotations. Concretely, the paper constructs a knowledge base of 186,197 criminal and 152,452 civil legal documents, samples documents together with ten seed problems per task, and asks DeepSeek V3 to write new questions, answers, reasoning paths, and legal references. A Reference Modifier and Reasoning Corrector patch the drafts, and a Data Verifier rejects drafts where the answer does not follow from the corrected reasoning and references. The 25K verified problems are expanded by Mixture Training into 50K training examples, then used to fine-tune Qwen-2.5 at 0.5B, 1.5B, and 3B. On the four tasks, LawGPT-3B averages 71.8, ahead of all legal-specific baselines (best 56.1) and GPT-4 (67.4), while DeepSeek V3 averages 74.2; ablations show the best average only when all four pipeline modules are active.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline's quality guarantee rests on the assumption that a legal-knowledge base plus the same generative LLM's self-correction and verification can catch every legally significant hallucination, so that the 50K synthetic examples are genuinely correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the result holds, a 3B open-source model can deliver legal-reasoning quality close to GPT-4 and DeepSeek V3 on the four tested Chinese legal tasks, which makes private and low-cost legal inference feasible.
Because performance rose monotonically as training data grew from 8K to 50K, the framework appears to have headroom for larger synthetic datasets.
The MITRA expansion implies that training on both direct answers and explicit reasoning paths can improve accuracy without sacrificing response format.
Legal-specific models at 7B-33B are outperformed by a 3B model trained on synthetic data, suggesting scale is not the only route to domain competence.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper leaves the generator and verifier as the same model family, so it does not isolate how much of DAVER's filtering is genuine verification versus stylistic self-consistency; a human-annotated audit of the released dataset would test this.
A natural extension is to replay KgDG with a different generator or with an external legal-validity checker; if performance holds, the framework's contribution is the knowledge-sampling structure rather than any particular generator.
Because the four tasks are all template-heavy Chinese legal reasoning problems, the method's transfer to open-ended legal advice or common-law jurisdictions is untested.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a believable pipeline paper, and the ablation and scaling evidence are real, but the headline comparison has a load-bearing contamination risk that the paper does not address. I would send it to review, but only with a demand for dedup/overlap analysis and a real-data fine-tuning baseline.

What is new: KgDG is the first application I know of that takes the MetaMath/WizardMath recipe—generate data with a strong model, refine, verify—and makes it work for Chinese legal reasoning by sampling from a legal knowledge base, fixing references and reasoning with a second pass, and verifying with a third. MITRA's mix of direct-answer and reasoning-path training instances is simple and sensible. The experiments are honestly presented: gains grow with data volume and model scale, and the ablation shows each module contributes, with DAVER slightly hurting on prison term prediction. That last detail is the kind of thing that makes me trust the paper is not cherry-picking.

Where it is soft: the contamination concern is real. The knowledge base is built from 186K criminal and 152K civil documents, and three of the four eval tasks come from public corpora like CAIL2018 and Xiezhi. The paper reports no overlap statistics between the KB, the generated 50K, and the test sets. If CAIL2018 test documents or near-paraphrases ended up in the KB, DeepSeek V3 could reproduce them in the synthetic data, and the fine-tuned model would be memorizing rather than reasoning. The seed problems use the exact answer formats of the eval tasks, which amplifies the risk. This is directly testable with n-gram overlap and a retrain on deduplicated data. They need to run it.

Second, DAVER uses DeepSeek V3 to judge data produced by DeepSeek V3. That is circular for the "high-quality 50K" claim. Some independent check—a sample of human legal review, or at minimum a different model as verifier—is needed. Third, there is no baseline where the same Qwen models are fine-tuned on real legal QA data of similar size. Without it, we do not know whether LawGPT's gains come from the KgDG pipeline or simply from more legal-format training data.

None of these are fatal to the method's plausibility. The framework is coherent, the writing is clear, and the limitations section is honest. The citation pattern is fine, building on WizardMath and the authors' own math data generation work. But the current paper overstates what it establishes: "comparable to proprietary LLMs" is not supported until leakage is ruled out.

Who should read it: people building domain-specific synthetic data pipelines, especially in legal NLP. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should insist on the contamination and baseline experiments. I would not cite the headline numbers in my own work yet.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes KgDG, a knowledge-guided data generation framework for legal reasoning, with three components: KGGEN (knowledge-guided generation from a legal knowledge base and seed problems), KGFIX (reference and reasoning correction), and DAVER (verification and filtering), plus MITRA, a mixture training strategy that expands each verified problem into a direct-answer pair and a reasoning-path pair. Using DeepSeek V3 as the generator, the authors create 25K verified problems, expand them to 50K training examples, and fine-tune Qwen-2.5 models of 0.5B, 1.5B, and 3B parameters. The resulting LawGPT models are evaluated on four Chinese legal reasoning tasks (article prediction, two prison-term prediction tasks, and criminal damages calculation) and are reported to outperform existing legal-specific LLMs and to approach the performance of DeepSeek V3, with ablations and a data-scaling analysis.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper makes a practical contribution: a 3B open-source model that outperforms 7B-33B legal-specific LLMs and comes close to a 671B proprietary-scale model would be a useful and economical result for legal NLP. The framework is clearly described, the code is promised to be public, the experiments span multiple model sizes, and the ablation and scalability studies are appropriate. However, the significance of the claim depends on two currently unresolved issues: the possibility of training/evaluation contamination, since the knowledge base and the test tasks draw on the same public legal corpora, and the absence of independent or human verification of the generated data, since DAVER and the generator are both DeepSeek V3.

major comments (4)

[§3.1, Table 2] The reported gains are vulnerable to training/evaluation contamination. The legal knowledge base is built from 186,197 criminal and 152,452 civil legal documents, and the evaluation tasks are drawn from the same public Chinese legal corpora (CAIL2018 for Tasks #2 and #3, Xiezhi for Task #1, and laic.cjbdi.com for Task #4). The synthetic training data is generated from documents sampled from this knowledge base and uses the answer formats of the test tasks (e.g., the '[金额]...<eoa>' format for Task #4). The paper reports no overlap statistics, no deduplication of generated training items against test instances or source documents, and no retraining experiment on a contamination-free subset. Because every headline comparison in Table 2 rests on these four tasks, this issue is load-bearing and directly testable. Please add a contamination analysis with overlap statistics and retrain LawGPT on a version of the 50K set from which any near-duplicate of the test instances or their source documents has been removed.
[§2.2, Appendix A] The claim that the 50K examples are 'high-quality' is not supported by independent evidence. DAVER uses DeepSeek V3, the same model that generated the data, to judge correctness, and the Reference Modifier and Reasoning Corrector are also DeepSeek V3 prompts; the knowledge base itself is not audited. This is a circular quality-control procedure: it demonstrates that one LLM accepts the outputs of another LLM, not that the legal content is correct. Please report a human expert audit on a random sample of the generated data (including inter-annotator agreement and an error taxonomy), or substantiate quality with an independent verifier, and report the DAVER pass rate together with examples of accepted and rejected items.
[§3.1, Table 1 and Table 3] The effectiveness of KgDG is not isolated against a conventional fine-tuning baseline. The comparisons in Table 1 are against the untrained Qwen-2.5 base models, so the gains could be attributed to any additional supervised fine-tuning data rather than to knowledge-guided generation. The ablation in Table 3 does include a KGGEN-only condition, but it does not include a condition that generates the same amount of data without the knowledge base and with the same correction/verification pipeline; the first row is again the untrained base model. To support the central claim that KgDG itself is effective, please add a baseline trained on an equal-sized dataset generated by the same pipeline without the legal knowledge base, and ideally a baseline trained on real legal data of the same size.
[§3.2, Table 2] The conclusion that LawGPT improves 'legal reasoning' is broader than what the evaluation supports. The four tasks are all on Chinese criminal and civil law, and three of the four are derived from the same datasets used to construct the knowledge base. To support generalization beyond these four tasks, please either temper the wording or add out-of-domain evaluation tasks, such as legal QA from a different jurisdiction, contract or statute QA, or additional LawBench categories that were not used during data generation.

minor comments (4)

[§3.3, Table 3] The ablation study is reported on a single 4K subset without variance across random seeds or data subsets; please add standard deviations or multiple repeats, especially because the paper notes DAVER causes a slight degradation on Tasks #2 and #3.
[§2.2 and Appendix A] The text says the Reference Modifier validates and corrects references 'using LLMs or the knowledge base,' but the Appendix A prompt for the Reference Modifier shows only an LLM prompt operating on the provided JSON; please clarify how the knowledge base is actually used in this step.
[Figure 2] The y-axes of the four scalability plots use narrow ranges (e.g., 32.2-38.7 for Task #1 and 84.2-89.2 for Task #2), which makes small improvements appear larger than they are; please use full-scale axes and, where possible, add error bars.
[Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical issues: 'exising' in Section 2, 'evluation' in Section 3.1, 'seperated' in Section 2.3, 'out fine-tuned model' in Section 3.2, and 'Our code and resources is publicly available' in the abstract. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

DAVER's LLM self-verification makes the 'high-quality data' claim definitional, but external LawBench-style tasks keep the headline comparison partly independent.

self definitional [Section 2.2 (DAVER); Section 3.1 (Dataset Construction); Appendix A (Prompt for Verification)]
"we implement DAVER to validate whether the answer ˜a can be derived from the question ˜q using the corrected references ˆr and reasoning path ˆp. If the validation succeeds, we mark the question-answer pair as valid (denoted as ˆq and ˆa). ... We implement the KGDG framework using the DeepSeek V3 model ... 请你判断数据中的推理过程与答案是否正确，请以JSON格式返回你的判断结果。JSON格式数据中包含一个 verify 字段，取值为正确或错误，也包含一个 message 字段，表示你判断的理由。"

The validity test that defines a 'high-quality' synthetic example is performed by the same DeepSeek V3 model that generated the unverified draft. There is no independent ground-truth check: 'valid' is by construction 'accepted by the generator'. Consequently, the claimed 50K high-quality examples are high-quality only in the sense of self-approval, and the subsequent comparison of LawGPT with DeepSeek V3 in Table 2 partly measures distillation from the teacher rather than independent legal reasoning. The external benchmarks (LawBench-style tasks, GPT-4, legal-specific LLMs) prevent this from being the whole story, but the quality gate itself is self-referential.

full rationale

The main empirical comparison is against external benchmarks (LawBench-style tasks, GPT-4, legal-specific LLMs), so the headline claim is not wholly constructed from the paper's own outputs. However, the data-quality guarantee is circular: DAVER, implemented with the same DeepSeek V3 model that produced the drafts, is the sole arbiter of correctness for the 50K training examples before they are used to train LawGPT. This makes 'verified data' equivalent to 'data accepted by the generator', a self-definitional quality gate. The paper also contains a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation (Li et al. 2024b) for the general idea of LLM-based data generation, but that does not by itself drive the results. No formal equation or fitted parameter is shown to reduce a headline number to its input; therefore the circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not rest on a mathematical derivation; the load-bearing inputs are empirical assumptions about data quality, task validity, and the generator/verifier model. No invented entities or scientifically fitted parameters are introduced; the training hyperparameters are standard and not fitted to evaluation scores.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The four LawBench-style tasks (article prediction, prison term prediction, damages calculation) provide a valid and representative measure of legal reasoning ability.
Adopted as the evaluation protocol in Section 3.1; the paper does not argue that these tasks cover the breadth of legal reasoning.
domain assumption The legal documents in the knowledge base (186,197 criminal and 152,452 civil) are accurate and legally sufficient for generating and verifying problems.
Used in Section 2.1 and Appendix A; no provenance or legal expert audit is provided.
domain assumption DeepSeek V3, used for generation, correction, and verification, is reliable enough for the task.
All modules in Section 2 invoke LLMs; the paper itself notes proprietary LLMs lack legal knowledge, so the fixer and verifier's reliability against ground truth is untested.
domain assumption The overlap between the knowledge base, generated training data, and LawBench evaluation tasks is not a source of contamination.
Knowledge base documents appear to come from the same judicial sources as LawBench-style tasks (e.g., CAIL2018); no contamination analysis is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LawGPT: Knowledge-Guided Data Generation and Its Application to Legal LLM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DYEMJX5J

@misc{pith2026250206572,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LawGPT: Knowledge-Guided Data Generation and Its Application to Legal LLM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DYEMJX5J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06572}
}

read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs), both proprietary and open-source, have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various natural language processing tasks. However, they face significant limitations in legal reasoning tasks. Proprietary models introduce data privacy risks and high inference costs, while open-source models underperform due to insufficient legal domain training data. To address these limitations, we study data generation for legal reasoning to improve the legal reasoning performance of open-source LLMs with the help of proprietary LLMs. This is challenging due to the lack of legal knowledge in proprietary LLMs and the difficulty in verifying the generated data. We propose KgDG, a knowledge-guided data generation framework for legal reasoning. Our framework enables leveraging legal knowledge to enhance generation diversity and introduces a refinement and verification process to ensure the quality of generated data. Moreover, we expand the generated dataset to further enhance the LLM reasoning capabilities. Using KgDG, we create a synthetic legal reasoning dataset containing 50K high-quality examples. Our trained model LawGPT outperforms existing legal-specific LLMs and achieves performance comparable to proprietary LLMs, demonstrating the effectiveness of KgDG and LawGPT. Our code and resources is publicly available at https://github.com/LAMDASZ-ML/Knowledge-Guide-Data-Generation .

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06572 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Illustration of KGDG, a knowledge-guided data generation framework. cess is controlled by a strategy π(k, e|DGen) that samples from K and E conditioned on the current generated dataset DGen, where k ∈ K represents a sampled legal document and e ∈ E represents a sampled seed problem. We implement π as a two-step sampling strategy: (1) LLM selects specific types of legal knowledge from K based on the sampled example p… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Scalability analysis of the KGDG framework. The performance on all tasks improves as the amount of generated training data increases. 3.2 EMPIRICAL RESULTS In this section, we conduct experiments to compare the performance of LAWGPT with base models, general LLMs, and legal-specific LLMs to demonstrate the effectiveness of our KGDG framework as well as the trained legal LLM LAWGPT. Effectiveness of KGDG. To evaluate… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Foundation Model Empowered Synesthesia of Machines (SoM): AI-native Intelligent Multi-Modal Sensing-Communication Integration
eess.SP 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The paper proposes a systematic classification and two roadmaps for using foundation models (LLMs and wireless foundation models) to design Synesthesia of Machines systems for 6G, with preliminary case-study evidence ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[5]

Lawyer llama technical report

Quzhe Huang, Mingxu Tao, Zhenwei An, Chen Zhang, Cong Jiang, Zhibin Chen, Zirui Wu, and Yansong Feng. Lawyer llama technical report. CoRR, abs/2305.15062,

arXiv
[6]

Learning to predict charges for criminal cases with legal basis

Bingfeng Luo, Yansong Feng, Jianbo Xu, Xiang Zhang, and Dongyan Zhao. Learning to predict charges for criminal cases with legal basis. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 2727–2736,

work page 2017
[8]

Gpt-3.5 turbo

OpenAI. Gpt-3.5 turbo. Technical report, 2023a. OpenAI. Gpt-4. Technical report, 2023b. Arun James Thirunavukarasu, Darren Shu Jeng Ting, Kabilan Elangovan, Laura Gutierrez, Ting Fang Tan, and Daniel Shu Wei Ting. Large language models in medicine.Nature Medicine, 29:1930–1940,

work page 1930
[9]

Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models

Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Niko- lay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton-Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fuller, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Naman Goyal, Anthony Har...

arXiv
[10]

CAIL2018: A large-scale legal dataset for judgment prediction

Chaojun Xiao, Haoxi Zhong, Zhipeng Guo, Cunchao Tu, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yansong Feng, Xianpei Han, Zhen Hu, Heng Wang, and Jianfeng Xu. CAIL2018: A large-scale legal dataset for judgment prediction. CoRR, abs/1807.02478,

arXiv
[12]

Fingpt: Open-source financial large language models

Hongyang Yang, Xiao-Yang Liu, and Christina Dan Wang. Fingpt: Open-source financial large language models. CoRR, abs/2306.06031,

arXiv
[2013]

Chatlaw: Open-source legal large language model with integrated external knowledge bases

Jiaxi Cui, Zongjian Li, Yang Yan, Bohua Chen, and Li Yuan. Chatlaw: Open-source legal large language model with integrated external knowledge bases. CoRR, abs/2306.16092,

arXiv
[2018]

Qwen2.5 technical report

An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keming Lu, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, Le Yu, Mei Li, Mingfeng Xue, Pei Zhang, Qin Zhu, Rui Men, Runji Lin, Tianhao Li, Tingyu X...

arXiv

Show all 12 references

[2022]

Lawbench: Benchmarking legal knowledge of large language models

Zhiwei Fei, Xiaoyu Shen, Dawei Zhu, Fengzhe Zhou, Zhuo Han, Songyang Zhang, Kai Chen, Zongwen Shen, and Jidong Ge. Lawbench: Benchmarking legal knowledge of large language models. CoRR, abs/2309.16289,

arXiv
[2023]

Zhang, Han Bao, Hanwei Xu, Haocheng Wang, Haowei Zhang, Honghui Ding, Huajian Xin, Huazuo Gao, Hui Li, Hui Qu, J

DeepSeek-AI, Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Cheng- gang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, Damai Dai, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Deli Chen, Dongjie Ji, Erhang Li, Fangyun Lin, Fucong Dai, Fuli Luo, Guangbo Hao, Guanting Chen, Guowei...

arXiv
[2024]

Syllogistic reasoning for legal judgment analysis

Wentao Deng, Jiahuan Pei, Keyi Kong, Zhe Chen, Furu Wei, Yujun Li, Zhaochun Ren, Zhumin Chen, and Pengjie Ren. Syllogistic reasoning for legal judgment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 13997–14009,

2023
[2025]

A brief report on lawgpt 1.0: A virtual legal assistant based on GPT-3

Ha-Thanh Nguyen. A brief report on lawgpt 1.0: A virtual legal assistant based on GPT-3. CoRR, abs/2302.05729,

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Lawyer llama technical report

Quzhe Huang, Mingxu Tao, Zhenwei An, Chen Zhang, Cong Jiang, Zhibin Chen, Zirui Wu, and Yansong Feng. Lawyer llama technical report. CoRR, abs/2305.15062,

arXiv

[2] [6]

Learning to predict charges for criminal cases with legal basis

Bingfeng Luo, Yansong Feng, Jianbo Xu, Xiang Zhang, and Dongyan Zhao. Learning to predict charges for criminal cases with legal basis. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 2727–2736,

work page 2017

[3] [8]

Gpt-3.5 turbo

OpenAI. Gpt-3.5 turbo. Technical report, 2023a. OpenAI. Gpt-4. Technical report, 2023b. Arun James Thirunavukarasu, Darren Shu Jeng Ting, Kabilan Elangovan, Laura Gutierrez, Ting Fang Tan, and Daniel Shu Wei Ting. Large language models in medicine.Nature Medicine, 29:1930–1940,

work page 1930

[4] [9]

Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models

Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Niko- lay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton-Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fuller, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Naman Goyal, Anthony Har...

arXiv

[5] [10]

CAIL2018: A large-scale legal dataset for judgment prediction

Chaojun Xiao, Haoxi Zhong, Zhipeng Guo, Cunchao Tu, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yansong Feng, Xianpei Han, Zhen Hu, Heng Wang, and Jianfeng Xu. CAIL2018: A large-scale legal dataset for judgment prediction. CoRR, abs/1807.02478,

arXiv

[6] [12]

Fingpt: Open-source financial large language models

Hongyang Yang, Xiao-Yang Liu, and Christina Dan Wang. Fingpt: Open-source financial large language models. CoRR, abs/2306.06031,

arXiv

[7] [2013]

Chatlaw: Open-source legal large language model with integrated external knowledge bases

Jiaxi Cui, Zongjian Li, Yang Yan, Bohua Chen, and Li Yuan. Chatlaw: Open-source legal large language model with integrated external knowledge bases. CoRR, abs/2306.16092,

arXiv

[8] [2018]

Qwen2.5 technical report

An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keming Lu, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, Le Yu, Mei Li, Mingfeng Xue, Pei Zhang, Qin Zhu, Rui Men, Runji Lin, Tianhao Li, Tingyu X...

arXiv