LEXam: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning on 340 Law Exams

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.12864v3
• Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:30:57 GMT
• Title: LEXam: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning on 340 Law Exams
• Authors: Yu Fan, Jingwei Ni, Jakob Merane, Etienne Salimbeni, Yang Tian, Yoan Hermstrüwer, Yinya Huang, Mubashara Akhtar, Florian Geering, Oliver Dreyer, Daniel Brunner, Markus Leippold, Mrinmaya Sachan, Alexander Stremitzer, Christoph Engel, Elliott Ash, Joel Niklaus,
• Abstract summary: LEXam is a novel benchmark derived from 340 law exams spanning 116 law school courses across a range of subjects and degree levels.<n>The dataset comprises 4,886 law exam questions in English and German, including 2,841 long-form, open-ended questions and 2,045 multiple-choice questions.
• Score: 61.344330783528015
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Long-form legal reasoning remains a key challenge for large language models (LLMs) in spite of recent advances in test-time scaling. We introduce LEXam, a novel benchmark derived from 340 law exams spanning 116 law school courses across a range of subjects and degree levels. The dataset comprises 4,886 law exam questions in English and German, including 2,841 long-form, open-ended questions and 2,045 multiple-choice questions. Besides reference answers, the open questions are also accompanied by explicit guidance outlining the expected legal reasoning approach such as issue spotting, rule recall, or rule application. Our evaluation on both open-ended and multiple-choice questions present significant challenges for current LLMs; in particular, they notably struggle with open questions that require structured, multi-step legal reasoning. Moreover, our results underscore the effectiveness of the dataset in differentiating between models with varying capabilities. Adopting an LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm with rigorous human expert validation, we demonstrate how model-generated reasoning steps can be evaluated consistently and accurately. Our evaluation setup provides a scalable method to assess legal reasoning quality beyond simple accuracy metrics. Project page: https://lexam-benchmark.github.io/

Related papers

• MMReason: An Open-Ended Multi-Modal Multi-Step Reasoning Benchmark for MLLMs Toward AGI [59.196131618912005]
  Reasoning plays a crucial role in advancing Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs)<n>Existing MLLM benchmarks often fall short in precisely and comprehensively evaluating long-chain reasoning abilities.<n>We introduce MMReason, a new benchmark designed to precisely and comprehensively evaluate MLLM long-chain reasoning capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T07:14:38Z)
• 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)
• 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.<n>Our dataset lays the groundwork for more human-aligned, explainable Legal Judgment Prediction models.<n>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)
• LegalBench.PT: A Benchmark for Portuguese Law [17.554201334646056]
  We present LegalBench.PT, the first comprehensive legal benchmark covering key areas of Portuguese law.<n>We first collect long-form questions and answers from real law exams, and then use GPT-4o to convert them into multiple-choice, true/false, and matching formats.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-22T21:07:12Z)
• Legal Evalutions and Challenges of Large Language Models [42.51294752406578]
  We use the OPENAI o1 model as a case study to evaluate the performance of large models in applying legal provisions. We compare current state-of-the-art LLMs, including open-source, closed-source, and legal-specific models trained specifically for the legal domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-15T12:23:12Z)
• LLM vs. Lawyers: Identifying a Subset of Summary Judgments in a Large UK Case Law Dataset [0.0]
  This study addresses the gap in the literature working with large legal corpora about how to isolate cases, in our case summary judgments, from a large corpus of UK court decisions. We use the Cambridge Law Corpus of 356,011 UK court decisions and determine that the large language model achieves a weighted F1 score of 0.94 versus 0.78 for keywords. We identify and extract 3,102 summary judgment cases, enabling us to map their distribution across various UK courts over a temporal span.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T10:13:30Z)
• 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)
• Large Language Models can Learn Rules [106.40747309894236]
  We present Hypotheses-to-Theories (HtT), a framework that learns a rule library for reasoning with large language models (LLMs)<n> Experiments on relational reasoning, numerical reasoning and concept learning problems show that HtT improves existing prompting methods.<n>The learned rules are also transferable to different models and to different forms of the same problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T23:07:01Z)
• Interpretable Long-Form Legal Question Answering with Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models [10.834755282333589]
  Long-form Legal Question Answering dataset comprises 1,868 expert-annotated legal questions in the French language. Our experimental results demonstrate promising performance on automatic evaluation metrics. As one of the only comprehensive, expert-annotated long-form LQA dataset, LLeQA has the potential to not only accelerate research towards resolving a significant real-world issue, but also act as a rigorous benchmark for evaluating NLP models in specialized domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T08:23:19Z)
• The Legal Argument Reasoning Task in Civil Procedure [2.079168053329397]
  We present a new NLP task and dataset from the domain of the U.S. civil procedure. Each instance of the dataset consists of a general introduction to the case, a particular question, and a possible solution argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-05T17:41:00Z)

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.