J&H: Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models Under Knowledge-Injection Attacks in Legal Domain

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.18360v1
• Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 05:42:05 GMT
• Title: J&H: Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models Under Knowledge-Injection Attacks in Legal Domain
• Authors: Yiran Hu, Huanghai Liu, Qingjing Chen, Ning Zheng, Chong Wang, Yun Liu, Charles L. A. Clarke, Weixing Shen,
• Abstract summary: We propose a method of legal knowledge injection attacks for robustness testing.<n>The aim of the framework is to explore whether LLMs perform deductive reasoning when accomplishing legal tasks.<n>We have collected mistakes that legal experts might make in judicial decisions in the real world.
• Score: 12.550611136062722
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As the scale and capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) increase, their applications in knowledge-intensive fields such as legal domain have garnered widespread attention. However, it remains doubtful whether these LLMs make judgments based on domain knowledge for reasoning. If LLMs base their judgments solely on specific words or patterns, rather than on the underlying logic of the language, the ''LLM-as-judges'' paradigm poses substantial risks in the real-world applications. To address this question, we propose a method of legal knowledge injection attacks for robustness testing, thereby inferring whether LLMs have learned legal knowledge and reasoning logic. In this paper, we propose J&H: an evaluation framework for detecting the robustness of LLMs under knowledge injection attacks in the legal domain. The aim of the framework is to explore whether LLMs perform deductive reasoning when accomplishing legal tasks. To further this aim, we have attacked each part of the reasoning logic underlying these tasks (major premise, minor premise, and conclusion generation). We have collected mistakes that legal experts might make in judicial decisions in the real world, such as typos, legal synonyms, inaccurate external legal statutes retrieval. However, in real legal practice, legal experts tend to overlook these mistakes and make judgments based on logic. However, when faced with these errors, LLMs are likely to be misled by typographical errors and may not utilize logic in their judgments. We conducted knowledge injection attacks on existing general and domain-specific LLMs. Current LLMs are not robust against the attacks employed in our experiments. In addition we propose and compare several methods to enhance the knowledge robustness of LLMs.

Related papers

• LexPam: Legal Procedure Awareness-Guided Mathematical Reasoning [12.90492832643565]
  Existing legal LLMs can perform general judicial question answering, but their legal mathematical reasoning capabilities have not been trained. There is currently a lack of legal mathematical reasoning datasets to help validate and enhance LLMs' reasoning abilities in legal contexts. We introduce LexPam, a reinforcement learning algorithm guided by legal procedural awareness to train LLMs, enhancing their mathematical reasoning abilities in legal scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-03T13:54:53Z)
• Investigating the Shortcomings of LLMs in Step-by-Step Legal Reasoning [34.427730009102966]
  We develop an automated evaluation framework to identify reasoning errors and evaluate the performance of LLMs.<n>Our work will also serve as an evaluation framework that can be used in detailed error analysis of reasoning chains for logic-intensive complex tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-08T19:49:32Z)
• RuleArena: A Benchmark for Rule-Guided Reasoning with LLMs in Real-World Scenarios [58.90106984375913]
  RuleArena is a novel and challenging benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to follow complex, real-world rules in reasoning.<n> Covering three practical domains -- airline baggage fees, NBA transactions, and tax regulations -- RuleArena assesses LLMs' proficiency in handling intricate natural language instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T06:08:46Z)
• LLMs' Reading Comprehension Is Affected by Parametric Knowledge and Struggles with Hypothetical Statements [59.71218039095155]
  Task of reading comprehension (RC) provides a primary means to assess language models' natural language understanding (NLU) capabilities. If the context aligns with the models' internal knowledge, it is hard to discern whether the models' answers stem from context comprehension or from internal information. To address this issue, we suggest to use RC on imaginary data, based on fictitious facts and entities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T13:08:56Z)
• Caveat Lector: Large Language Models in Legal Practice [0.0]
  The fascination with large language models derives from the fact that many users lack the expertise to evaluate the quality of the generated text. The dangerous combination of fluency and superficial plausibility leads to the temptation to trust the generated text and creates the risk of overreliance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-14T08:19:41Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)
• A Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models on Legal Judgment Prediction [60.70089334782383]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated great potential for domain-specific applications. Recent disputes over GPT-4's law evaluation raise questions concerning their performance in real-world legal tasks. We design practical baseline solutions based on LLMs and test on the task of legal judgment prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T07:38:04Z)
• 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)
• LAiW: A Chinese Legal Large Language Models Benchmark [17.66376880475554]
  General and legal domain LLMs have demonstrated strong performance in various tasks of LegalAI. We are the first to build the Chinese legal LLMs benchmark LAiW, based on the logic of legal practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T11:19:55Z)
• LawBench: Benchmarking Legal Knowledge of Large Language Models [35.2812008533622]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in various aspects. It is unclear how much legal knowledge they possess and whether they can reliably perform legal-related tasks. LawBench has been meticulously crafted to have precise assessment of the LLMs' legal capabilities from three cognitive levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-28T09:35:59Z)
• Investigating the Factual Knowledge Boundary of Large Language Models with Retrieval Augmentation [109.8527403904657]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) possess unwavering confidence in their knowledge and cannot handle the conflict between internal and external knowledge well. Retrieval augmentation proves to be an effective approach in enhancing LLMs' awareness of knowledge boundaries. We propose a simple method to dynamically utilize supporting documents with our judgement strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T16:46:10Z)

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.