LexRel: Benchmarking Legal Relation Extraction for Chinese Civil Cases

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.12643v1
• Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2025 11:16:39 GMT
• Title: LexRel: Benchmarking Legal Relation Extraction for Chinese Civil Cases
• Abstract summary: Legal relations in Chinese civil cases remain underexplored in the field of legal artificial intelligence (legal AI)<n>We introduce a comprehensive schema, which contains a hierarchical taxonomy and definitions of arguments, for AI systems to capture legal relations in Chinese civil cases.<n>Based on this schema, we then formulate legal relation extraction task and present LexRel, an expert-annotated benchmark for legal relation extraction in Chinese civil law.
• Score: 30.208061617694025
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Legal relations form a highly consequential analytical framework of civil law system, serving as a crucial foundation for resolving disputes and realizing values of the rule of law in judicial practice. However, legal relations in Chinese civil cases remain underexplored in the field of legal artificial intelligence (legal AI), largely due to the absence of comprehensive schemas. In this work, we firstly introduce a comprehensive schema, which contains a hierarchical taxonomy and definitions of arguments, for AI systems to capture legal relations in Chinese civil cases. Based on this schema, we then formulate legal relation extraction task and present LexRel, an expert-annotated benchmark for legal relation extraction in Chinese civil law. We use LexRel to evaluate state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) on legal relation extractions, showing that current LLMs exhibit significant limitations in accurately identifying civil legal relations. Furthermore, we demonstrate that incorporating legal relations information leads to consistent performance gains on other downstream legal AI tasks.

Related papers

• Legal2LogicICL: Improving Generalization in Transforming Legal Cases to Logical Formulas via Diverse Few-Shot Learning [1.315248337031741]
  This work aims to improve the generalization of logic-based legal reasoning systems by integrating recent advances in NLP with legal-domain adaptive few-shot learning techniques using LLMs.<n>We introduce Legal2LogicICL, a few-shot retrieval framework that balances diversity and similarity of exemplars at both the latent semantic representation level and the legal text structure level.<n>Our approach significantly improves accuracy, stability, and generalization in transforming natural-language legal case descriptions into logical representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T16:36:48Z)
• 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)
• LRAS: Advanced Legal Reasoning with Agentic Search [48.281150948187786]
  Legal Reasoning with Agentic Search (LRAS) is a framework designed to transition legal LLMs from static and parametric "closed-loop thinking" to dynamic and interactive "Active Inquiry"<n>By integrating Introspective Learning and Difficulty-aware Reinforcement Learning, LRAS enables LRMs to identify knowledge boundaries and handle legal reasoning.<n> Empirical results demonstrate that LRAS outperforms state-of-the-art baselines by 8.2-32%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T08:07:35Z)
• 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' Complicit Responses to Illicit Instructions across Socio-Legal Contexts [54.15982476754607]
  Large language models (LLMs) are now deployed at unprecedented scale, assisting millions of users in daily tasks.<n>This study defines complicit facilitation as the provision of guidance or support that enables illicit user instructions.<n>Using real-world legal cases and established legal frameworks, we construct an evaluation benchmark spanning 269 illicit scenarios and 50 illicit intents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T16:01:31Z)
• LawChain: Modeling Legal Reasoning Chains for Chinese Tort Case Analysis [30.18852139687054]
  We present a novel framework for explicitly modeling legal reasoning in the analysis of Chinese tort-related civil cases.<n>We first operationalize the legal reasoning processes used in tort analysis into the LawChain framework.<n>We evaluate state-of-the-art large language models for their legal reasoning ability in civil tort contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-20T14:50:58Z)
• Universal Legal Article Prediction via Tight Collaboration between Supervised Classification Model and LLM [42.11889345473452]
  Legal Article Prediction (LAP) is a critical task in legal text classification.<n>We propose Uni-LAP, a universal framework for legal article prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T09:42:20Z)
• 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)
• 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.<n>Inspired by this schema, we introduce the challenging task, which takes a textual case description and outputs a hierarchical structure justifying the final decision.<n>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.<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)
• 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.<n>To address them, a daunting challenge is assessing the uniquely defined legal-rational similarity within the judicial domain.<n>We propose an end-to-end model named LCM-LAI to solve the above challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T15:29:07Z)
• LawLLM: Law Large Language Model for the US Legal System [43.13850456765944]
  We introduce the Law Large Language Model (LawLLM), a multi-task model specifically designed for the US legal domain. LawLLM excels at Similar Case Retrieval (SCR), Precedent Case Recommendation (PCR), and Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) We propose customized data preprocessing techniques for each task that transform raw legal data into a trainable format.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-27T21:51:30Z)
• 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)
• Authorized and Unauthorized Practices of Law: The Role of Autonomous Levels of AI Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  The legal field has sought to define Authorized Practices of Law (APL) versus Unauthorized Practices of Law (UPL) This paper explores a newly derived instrumental grid depicting the key characteristics underlying APL and UPL as they apply to the AILR autonomous levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-19T18:35:58Z)

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.