REVIEW 11 cited by
LawBench: Benchmarking Legal Knowledge of Large Language Models
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
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in various aspects. However, when applying them to the highly specialized, safe-critical legal domain, it is unclear how much legal knowledge they possess and whether they can reliably perform legal-related tasks. To address this gap, we propose a comprehensive evaluation benchmark LawBench. LawBench has been meticulously crafted to have precise assessment of the LLMs' legal capabilities from three cognitive levels: (1) Legal knowledge memorization: whether LLMs can memorize needed legal concepts, articles and facts; (2) Legal knowledge understanding: whether LLMs can comprehend entities, events and relationships within legal text; (3) Legal knowledge applying: whether LLMs can properly utilize their legal knowledge and make necessary reasoning steps to solve realistic legal tasks. LawBench contains 20 diverse tasks covering 5 task types: single-label classification (SLC), multi-label classification (MLC), regression, extraction and generation. We perform extensive evaluations of 51 LLMs on LawBench, including 20 multilingual LLMs, 22 Chinese-oriented LLMs and 9 legal specific LLMs. The results show that GPT-4 remains the best-performing LLM in the legal domain, surpassing the others by a significant margin. While fine-tuning LLMs on legal specific text brings certain improvements, we are still a long way from obtaining usable and reliable LLMs in legal tasks. All data, model predictions and evaluation code are released in https://github.com/open-compass/LawBench/. We hope this benchmark provides in-depth understanding of the LLMs' domain-specified capabilities and speed up the development of LLMs in the legal domain.
Forward citations
Cited by 11 Pith papers
-
AI for Statutory Simplification: A Comprehensive State Legal Corpus and Labor Benchmark
State-of-the-art LLMs with retrieval answer simplified boolean questions about state unemployment insurance law with at best 0.69 F1, well short of reliable end-to-end code simplification.
-
What out-of-the-box LLMs can(t) do in law? A Turing test in Italian exams for lawyers, judges and notaries
Out-of-the-box LLMs can match or beat top human candidates on Italian bar and judge essay exams but all fail the notary exam, which requires constrained legal drafting and planning.
-
Benchmarking LLM-Assisted Blue Teaming via Standardized Threat Hunting
Standardized modular threat-hunting workflows (CyberTeam) improve LLM performance on blue team tasks compared to open-ended ICL, CoT, and ToT prompting across 30 tasks and 452k samples.
-
Towards Evaluation for Real-World LLM Unlearning
DCUE evaluates LLM unlearning by comparing core-token confidence score distributions of the unlearned model and the original model, corrected by a validation set, using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.
-
Using Large Language Models for Legal Decision-Making in Austrian Value-Added Tax Law: An Experimental Study
RAG-enhanced LLMs slightly outperform fine-tuned LLMs on Austrian/EU VAT questions, but not significantly, and neither approach is ready for full automation.
-
Measuring Faithfulness and Abstention: An Automated Pipeline for Evaluating LLM-Generated 3-ply Case-Based Legal Arguments
An automated LLM-based evaluator finds that eight LLMs rarely hallucinate factors in legal argument generation but often omit relevant factors and usually fail to abstain when no common ground exists.
-
Enterprise Large Language Model Evaluation Benchmark
A 14-task enterprise LLM benchmark built mostly from GPT-4o-generated labels and scored by GPT-4o-as-judge shows open-source models closing the reasoning gap, but the dataset is not public and the evaluation is partly...
-
ASP2LJ : An Adversarial Self-Play Laywer Augmented Legal Judgment Framework
ASP2LJ combines synthetic case generation with adversarial self-play for lawyer agents, improving legal judgment prediction on a Chinese benchmark and on a new rare-case dataset.
-
A Survey of Automatic Evaluation Methods on Text, Visual and Speech Generations
A unified taxonomy and comparative meta-evaluation of automatic evaluation methods across text, vision, and speech generation, concluding that LLM-based evaluators dominate current practice.
-
When Large Language Models Meet Law: Dual-Lens Taxonomy, Technical Advances, and Ethical Governance
A literature review that classifies LLM-for-law research using a dual-lens taxonomy of Toulmin argumentation components and legal practitioner roles.
-
Pangu Embedded: An Efficient Dual-system LLM Reasoner with Metacognition
Pangu Embedded, a 7B reasoner trained with iterative distillation, RL, and an adaptive fast/slow thinking scheme, reports superior benchmark scores to similarly sized Qwen3-8B and GLM-4-9B.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.