Identifying Legal Holdings with LLMs: A Systematic Study of Performance, Scale, and Memorization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.02172v3
• Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 19:09:19 GMT
• Title: Identifying Legal Holdings with LLMs: A Systematic Study of Performance, Scale, and Memorization
• Authors: Chuck Arvin,
• Abstract summary: We present a suite of experiments to assess the performance of modern large language models (LLMs)<n>Our experiments demonstrate scaling effects - performance on this task improves with model size.<n>We utilize a novel citation anonymization test that preserves semantic meaning while ensuring case names and citations are fictitious.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance in capabilities, it is essential to assess how they perform on established benchmarks. In this study, we present a suite of experiments to assess the performance of modern LLMs (ranging from 3B to 90B+ parameters) on CaseHOLD, a legal benchmark dataset for identifying case holdings. Our experiments demonstrate scaling effects - performance on this task improves with model size, with more capable models like GPT4o and AmazonNovaPro achieving macro F1 scores of 0.744 and 0.720 respectively. These scores are competitive with the best published results on this dataset, and do not require any technically sophisticated model training, fine-tuning or few-shot prompting. To ensure that these strong results are not due to memorization of judicial opinions contained in the training data, we develop and utilize a novel citation anonymization test that preserves semantic meaning while ensuring case names and citations are fictitious. Models maintain strong performance under these conditions (macro F1 of 0.728), suggesting the performance is not due to rote memorization. These findings demonstrate both the promise and current limitations of LLMs for legal tasks with important implications for the development and measurement of automated legal analytics and legal benchmarks.

Related papers

• Verifying the Verifiers: Unveiling Pitfalls and Potentials in Fact Verifiers [59.168391398830515]
  We evaluate 12 pre-trained LLMs and one specialized fact-verifier, using a collection of examples from 14 fact-checking benchmarks.<n>We highlight the importance of addressing annotation errors and ambiguity in datasets.<n> frontier LLMs with few-shot in-context examples, often overlooked in previous works, achieve top-tier performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T10:32:10Z)
• LegalEval-Q: A New Benchmark for The Quality Evaluation of LLM-Generated Legal Text [0.0]
  We develop a regression model to evaluate the quality of legal texts based on clarity, coherence, and terminology.<n>Our analysis identifies three key findings: First, model quality levels off at 14 billion parameters, with only a marginal improvement of $2.7%$ noted at 72 billion parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T17:30:18Z)
• Revisiting LLM Evaluation through Mechanism Interpretability: a New Metric and Model Utility Law [99.56567010306807]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become indispensable across academia, industry, and daily applications.<n>We propose a novel metric, the Model Utilization Index (MUI), which introduces mechanism interpretability techniques to complement traditional performance metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T04:09:47Z)
• Training an LLM-as-a-Judge Model: Pipeline, Insights, and Practical Lessons [9.954960702259918]
  This paper introduces Themis, a fine-tuned large language model (LLMs) judge that delivers context-aware evaluations.<n>We provide a comprehensive overview of the development pipeline for Themis, highlighting its scenario-dependent evaluation prompts.<n>We introduce two human-labeled benchmarks for meta-evaluation, demonstrating that Themis can achieve high alignment with human preferences in an economical manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T08:35:55Z)
• The Vulnerability of Language Model Benchmarks: Do They Accurately Reflect True LLM Performance? [1.3810901729134184]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at standardized tests while failing to demonstrate genuine language understanding and adaptability.<n>Our systematic analysis of NLP evaluation frameworks reveals pervasive vulnerabilities across the evaluation spectrum.<n>We lay the groundwork for new evaluation methods that resist manipulation, minimize data contamination, and assess domain-specific tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T20:49:21Z)
• Uncertainty Aware Learning for Language Model Alignment [97.36361196793929]
  We propose uncertainty-aware learning (UAL) to improve the model alignment of different task scenarios. We implement UAL in a simple fashion -- adaptively setting the label smoothing value of training according to the uncertainty of individual samples. Experiments on widely used benchmarks demonstrate that our UAL significantly and consistently outperforms standard supervised fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T11:37:45Z)
• GRATH: Gradual Self-Truthifying for Large Language Models [63.502835648056305]
  GRAdual self-truTHifying (GRATH) is a novel post-processing method to enhance truthfulness of large language models (LLMs) GRATH iteratively refines truthfulness data and updates the model, leading to a gradual improvement in model truthfulness in a self-supervised manner. GRATH achieves state-of-the-art performance on TruthfulQA, with MC1 accuracy of 54.71% and MC2 accuracy of 69.10%, which even surpass those on 70B-LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-22T19:00:08Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Modeling Legal Reasoning: LM Annotation at the Edge of Human Agreement [3.537369004801589]
  We study the classification of legal reasoning according to jurisprudential philosophy. We use a novel dataset of historical United States Supreme Court opinions annotated by a team of domain experts. We find that generative models perform poorly when given instructions equal to the instructions presented to human annotators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T19:27:59Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)
• Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models on GAOKAO Benchmark [53.663757126289795]
  This paper introduces GAOKAO-Bench, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples. With human evaluation, we obtain the converted total score of LLMs, including GPT-4, ChatGPT and ERNIE-Bot. We also use LLMs to grade the subjective questions, and find that model scores achieve a moderate level of consistency with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-21T14:39:28Z)

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.