JUREX-4E: Juridical Expert-Annotated Four-Element Knowledge Base for Legal Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17166v1
• Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:02:00 GMT
• Title: JUREX-4E: Juridical Expert-Annotated Four-Element Knowledge Base for Legal Reasoning
• Abstract summary: Four-Element Theory is a fundamental framework in criminal law, defining the constitution of crime through four dimensions.<n>Many Large Language Models (LLMs) attempt to incorporate this theory when handling legal tasks.<n>We introduce JUREX-4E, an expert-annotated knowledge base covering 155 criminal charges.
• Score: 25.87736103281699
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The Four-Element Theory is a fundamental framework in criminal law, defining the constitution of crime through four dimensions: Subject, Object, Subjective aspect, and Objective aspect. This theory is widely referenced in legal reasoning, and many Large Language Models (LLMs) attempt to incorporate it when handling legal tasks. However, current approaches rely on LLMs' internal knowledge to incorporate this theory, often lacking completeness and representativeness. To address this limitation, we introduce JUREX-4E, an expert-annotated knowledge base covering 155 criminal charges. It is structured through a progressive hierarchical annotation framework that prioritizes legal source validity and employs diverse legal interpretation methods to ensure comprehensiveness and authority. We evaluate JUREX-4E on the Similar Charge Distinction task and apply it to Legal Case Retrieval, demonstrating its effectiveness in improving LLM performance. Experimental results validate the high quality of JUREX-4E and its substantial impact on downstream legal tasks, underscoring its potential for advancing legal AI applications. Code: https://github.com/THUlawtech/JUREX

Related papers

• WisdomInterrogatory (LuWen): An Open-Source Legal Large Language Model Technical Report [55.27414605169639]
  We present WisdomInterrogatory (LuWen), an open-source Chinese legal language model built upon the Baichuan foundation model.<n>We evaluate LuWen on five representative legal tasks spanning both prediction and generation settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T06:59:07Z)
• LegalOne: A Family of Foundation Models for Reliable Legal Reasoning [54.57434222018289]
  We present LegalOne, a family of foundational models specifically tailored for the Chinese legal domain.<n>LegalOne is developed through a comprehensive three-phase pipeline designed to master legal reasoning.<n>We publicly release the LegalOne weights and the LegalKit evaluation framework to advance the field of Legal AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T10:18:32Z)
• PLawBench: A Rubric-Based Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Real-World Legal Practice [67.71760070255425]
  We introduce PLawBench, a practical benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in legal practice scenarios.<n>PLawBench comprises 850 questions across 13 practical legal scenarios, with each question accompanied by expert-designed evaluation rubrics.<n>Using an LLM-based evaluator aligned with human expert judgments, we evaluate 10 state-of-the-art LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T11:36:10Z)
• Chinese Labor Law Large Language Model Benchmark [11.552694592413303]
  We present LabourLawLLM, a large language model tailored to Chinese labor law.<n>We also introduce LabourLawBench, a benchmark covering diverse labor-law tasks.<n> Experiments show that LabourLawLLM consistently outperforms general-purpose and existing legal-specific LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T01:27:29Z)
• LexGenius: An Expert-Level Benchmark for Large Language Models in Legal General Intelligence [74.05988707492058]
  Legal general intelligence (GI) refers to artificial intelligence (AI) that encompasses legal understanding, reasoning, and decision-making.<n>Existing benchmarks are result-oriented and fail to systematically evaluate the legal intelligence of large language models (LLMs)<n>We propose LexGenius, an expert-level Chinese legal benchmark for evaluating legal GI in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-04T08:48:02Z)
• Large Language Models Meet Legal Artificial Intelligence: A Survey [9.530971874880427]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the development of Legal Artificial Intelligence (Legal AI)<n>This paper provides a review of 16 legal LLMs series and 47 LLM-based frameworks for legal tasks.<n>We also gather 15 benchmarks and 29 datasets to evaluate different legal capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-12T05:08:11Z)
• GLARE: Agentic Reasoning for Legal Judgment Prediction [60.13483016810707]
  Legal judgment prediction (LJP) has become increasingly important in the legal field.<n>Existing large language models (LLMs) have significant problems of insufficient reasoning due to a lack of legal knowledge.<n>We introduce GLARE, an agentic legal reasoning framework that dynamically acquires key legal knowledge by invoking different modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T13:38:12Z)
• GAIus: Combining Genai with Legal Clauses Retrieval for Knowledge-based Assistant [0.0]
  We discuss the history of legal information retrieval, the difference between case law and statute law, its impact on the legal tasks and analyze the latest research in this field.<n>We propose a retrieval mechanism which is more explainable, human-friendly and achieves better results than embedding-based approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-02T00:36:27Z)
• RLJP: Legal Judgment Prediction via First-Order Logic Rule-enhanced with Large Language Models [58.69183479148083]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is a pivotal task in legal AI.<n>Existing LJP models integrate judicial precedents and legal knowledge for high performance.<n>But they neglect legal reasoning logic, a critical component of legal judgments requiring rigorous logical analysis.<n>This paper proposes a rule-enhanced legal judgment prediction framework based on first-order logic (FOL) formalism and comparative learning (CL)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T14:50:21Z)
• A Law Reasoning Benchmark for LLM with Tree-Organized Structures including Factum Probandum, Evidence and Experiences [76.73731245899454]
  We propose a transparent law reasoning schema enriched with hierarchical factum probandum, evidence, and implicit experience. Inspired by this schema, we introduce the challenging task, which takes a textual case description and outputs a hierarchical structure justifying the final decision. This benchmark paves the way for transparent and accountable AI-assisted law reasoning in the Intelligent Court''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T10:26:54Z)
• AnnoCaseLaw: A Richly-Annotated Dataset For Benchmarking Explainable Legal Judgment Prediction [56.797874973414636]
  AnnoCaseLaw is a first-of-its-kind dataset of 471 meticulously annotated U.S. Appeals Court negligence cases. Our dataset lays the groundwork for more human-aligned, explainable Legal Judgment Prediction models. Results demonstrate that LJP remains a formidable task, with application of legal precedent proving particularly difficult.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T19:14:48Z)
• How Vital is the Jurisprudential Relevance: Law Article Intervened Legal Case Retrieval and Matching [31.378981566988063]
  Legal case retrieval (LCR) aims to automatically scour for comparable legal cases based on a given query. To address them, a daunting challenge is assessing the uniquely defined legal-rational similarity within the judicial domain. We propose an end-to-end model named LCM-LAI to solve the above challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T15:29:07Z)
• Developing a Pragmatic Benchmark for Assessing Korean Legal Language Understanding in Large Language Models [7.797885529152412]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in the legal domain. However their efficacy remains limited for non-standardized tasks and tasks in languages other than English. This underscores the need for careful evaluation of LLMs within each legal system before application.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-11T11:41:02Z)
• InternLM-Law: An Open Source Chinese Legal Large Language Model [72.2589401309848]
  InternLM-Law is a specialized LLM tailored for addressing diverse legal queries related to Chinese laws. We meticulously construct a dataset in the Chinese legal domain, encompassing over 1 million queries. InternLM-Law achieves the highest average performance on LawBench, outperforming state-of-the-art models, including GPT-4, on 13 out of 20 subtasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T06:19:03Z)
• Bridging Law and Data: Augmenting Reasoning via a Semi-Structured Dataset with IRAC methodology [22.740895683854568]
  This paper introduces LEGALSEMI, a benchmark specifically curated for legal scenario analysis. LEGALSEMI comprises 54 legal scenarios, each rigorously annotated by legal experts, based on the comprehensive IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) framework. A series of experiments were conducted to assess the usefulness of LEGALSEMI for IRAC analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T04:59:09Z)
• LawInstruct: A Resource for Studying Language Model Adaptation to the Legal Domain [47.001169623840354]
  We aggregate 58 annotated legal datasets and write instructions for each, creating LawInstruct.<n>LawInstruct covers 17 global jurisdictions, 24 languages and a total of 12M examples across diverse tasks such as legal QA, summarization of court cases, and legal argument mining.<n>We find that legal-specific instruction tuning on Flan-T5 - yielding FLawN-T5 - improves performance on LegalBench across all model sizes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-02T17:33:34Z)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• Precedent-Enhanced Legal Judgment Prediction with LLM and Domain-Model Collaboration [52.57055162778548]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) has become an increasingly crucial task in Legal AI. Precedents are the previous legal cases with similar facts, which are the basis for the judgment of the subsequent case in national legal systems. Recent advances in deep learning have enabled a variety of techniques to be used to solve the LJP task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T16:47:20Z)
• LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models [15.98468948605927]
  LegalBench is a benchmark consisting of 162 tasks covering six different types of legal reasoning. This paper describes LegalBench, presents an empirical evaluation of 20 open-source and commercial LLMs, and illustrates the types of research explorations LegalBench enables.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-20T22:08:03Z)
• Explaining Legal Concepts with Augmented Large Language Models (GPT-4) [0.8924669503280334]
  We evaluate the performance of GPT-4 in generating factually accurate, clear and relevant explanations of terms in legislation. We found that the direct application of GPT-4 yields explanations that appear to be of very high quality on their surface. We found that the augmentation leads to improved quality, and appears to eliminate the issue of hallucination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T21:58:18Z)
• SAILER: Structure-aware Pre-trained Language Model for Legal Case Retrieval [75.05173891207214]
  Legal case retrieval plays a core role in the intelligent legal system. Most existing language models have difficulty understanding the long-distance dependencies between different structures. We propose a new Structure-Aware pre-traIned language model for LEgal case Retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-22T10:47:01Z)
• Exploiting Contrastive Learning and Numerical Evidence for Confusing Legal Judgment Prediction [46.71918729837462]
  Given the fact description text of a legal case, legal judgment prediction aims to predict the case's charge, law article and penalty term. Previous studies fail to distinguish different classification errors with a standard cross-entropy classification loss. We propose a moco-based supervised contrastive learning to learn distinguishable representations. We further enhance the representation of the fact description with extracted crime amounts which are encoded by a pre-trained numeracy model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-15T15:53:56Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.