GreekBarBench: A Challenging Benchmark for Free-Text Legal Reasoning and Citations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.17267v2
• Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:12:11 GMT
• Title: GreekBarBench: A Challenging Benchmark for Free-Text Legal Reasoning and Citations
• Authors: Odysseas S. Chlapanis, Dimitrios Galanis, Nikolaos Aletras, Ion Androutsopoulos,
• Abstract summary: We introduce GreekBarBench, a benchmark that evaluates LLMs on legal questions across five different legal areas from the Greek Bar exams.<n>To tackle the challenges of free-text evaluation, we propose a three-dimensional scoring system combined with an LLM-as-a-judge approach.
• Score: 40.578140174918836
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: We introduce GreekBarBench, a benchmark that evaluates LLMs on legal questions across five different legal areas from the Greek Bar exams, requiring citations to statutory articles and case facts. To tackle the challenges of free-text evaluation, we propose a three-dimensional scoring system combined with an LLM-as-a-judge approach. We also develop a meta-evaluation benchmark to assess the correlation between LLM-judges and human expert evaluations, revealing that simple, span-based rubrics improve their alignment. Our systematic evaluation of 13 proprietary and open-weight LLMs shows that even though the best models outperform average expert scores, they fall short of the 95th percentile of experts.

Related papers

• Quantitative LLM Judges [48.676042957523045]
  We propose quantitative LLM judges, which align evaluation scores of existing LLM judges to human scores in a given domain.<n>The models are trained to improve the score of the original judge by using the judge's textual evaluation and score.<n>Our experiments show that quantitative judges can effectively improve the predictive power of existing judges through post-hoc modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:44:23Z)
• Automatic Legal Writing Evaluation of LLMs [10.74636407144071]
  oab-bench is a benchmark comprising 105 questions across seven areas of law from recent editions of the exam.<n>Claude-3.5 Sonnet achieves the best results with an average score of 7.93 out of 10, passing all 21 exams.<n>Our experiments show that frontier models like OpenAI's o1 achieve a strong correlation with human scores when evaluating approved exams.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T22:16:39Z)
• Multi-Agent LLM Judge: automatic personalized LLM judge design for evaluating natural language generation applications [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across diverse domains, yet they still encounter challenges such as insufficient domain-specific knowledge, biases, and hallucinations.<n>Traditional evaluation methods, which rely on word overlap or text embeddings, are inadequate for capturing the nuanced semantic information necessary to evaluate dynamic, open-ended text generation.<n>We propose a novel dynamic multi-agent system that automatically designs personalized LLM judges for various natural language generation applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T09:36:56Z)
• A Judge-free LLM Open-ended Generation Benchmark Based on the Distributional Hypothesis [1.5802986215292303]
  We propose a novel benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) using n-gram statistics and rules.<n>Using 50 question and reference answer sets, we introduce three new metrics based on n-grams and rules: Fluency, Truthfulness, and Helpfulness.<n>Our benchmark strongly correlates with GPT-4o-based evaluations while requiring significantly fewer computational resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T13:30:54Z)
• JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges [61.048125269475854]
  JudgeBench is a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based judges on challenging response pairs spanning knowledge, reasoning, math, and coding.<n>Our comprehensive evaluation on a collection of prompted judges, fine-tuned judges, multi-agent judges, and reward models shows that JudgeBench poses a significantly greater challenge than previous benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T17:58:19Z)
• Evaluating the Evaluator: Measuring LLMs' Adherence to Task Evaluation Instructions [18.93335792080899]
  We investigate how much influence prompting the LLMs-as-a-judge has on the alignment of AI judgements to human judgements. We aggregate a taxonomy of quality criteria commonly used across state-of-the-art evaluations with LLMs and provide this as a rigorous benchmark of models as judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T14:49:35Z)
• SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal [64.9938658716425]
  SORRY-Bench is a proposed benchmark for evaluating large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests.<n>First, existing methods often use coarse-grained taxonomy of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics.<n>Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• Flames: Benchmarking Value Alignment of LLMs in Chinese [86.73527292670308]
  This paper proposes a value alignment benchmark named Flames. It encompasses both common harmlessness principles and a unique morality dimension that integrates specific Chinese values. Our findings indicate that all the evaluated LLMs demonstrate relatively poor performance on Flames.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-12T17:18:21Z)

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.