Can LLMs Time Travel? Enhancing Temporal Consistency in Legal Agentic Search through Reinforcement Learning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.25920v1
• Date: Mon, 25 May 2026 14:57:13 GMT
• Title: Can LLMs Time Travel? Enhancing Temporal Consistency in Legal Agentic Search through Reinforcement Learning
• Abstract summary: Law must match the temporal context of each case, as retroactive application of statutes violates core legal principles and leads to erroneous conclusions.<n>Our observations reveal that current legal LLMs suffer from temporal bias anchored to their training cutoff, while search agents rarely incorporate temporal constraints into queries.<n>We propose LegalSearch-R1, an end-to-end reinforcement learning framework that pairs local statute RAG for precise article matching with online web search for broader legal knowledge, trained on temporally-indexed data spanning multiple amendment periods to enforce temporal consistency.
• Score: 45.13302016493955
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: While large language models (LLMs) augmented with agentic search capabilities show promise for legal reasoning, they overlook a fundamental constraint that applicable law must match the temporal context of each case, as retroactive application of statutes violates core legal principles and leads to erroneous conclusions. Our observations reveal that current legal LLMs suffer from temporal bias anchored to their training cutoff, while search agents rarely incorporate temporal constraints into queries, and that web search alone cannot provide the precise statute and precedent citations that legal reasoning demands. To address these challenges, we propose LegalSearch-R1, an end-to-end reinforcement learning framework that pairs local statute RAG for precise article matching with online web search for broader legal knowledge, trained on temporally-indexed data spanning multiple amendment periods to enforce temporal consistency. Extensive experiments on our benchmark covering 13 legal tasks demonstrate that our 7B-parameter agent outperforms state-of-the-art deep research frameworks and specialized legal LLMs by 12.9% to 29.8%, surpasses baselines by 57.7% to 80.3% on temporal consistency, and exhibits robust out-of-domain generalization. The code and data are available at https://github.com/AlexFanw/LegalSearch-R1.

Related papers

• LexKairos: Benchmarking Legal Temporal Capabilities in LLMs [11.625202652936869]
  LexKairos is a benchmark for evaluating the temporal capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in the Chinese legal context.<n>Our results show that Gemini-3-Flash achieves the strongest overall performance, yet even the best-performing model exhibits notable limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-10T04:24:00Z)
• Legal Reasoning Is Not Lawyering: Rethinking Legal Benchmarks for Pro Se Access to Justice [0.0]
  Legal AI benchmark research frequently invokes the assumption that large language models can improve access to justice.<n>We argue that current benchmarks are not equipped to support this assumption because they evaluate legal reasoning over inputs that have already been preprocessed by legal experts.<n>We conclude by calling for legal benchmarks that directly measure robustness under pro se-like inputs so that access-to-justice claims about legal AI can become empirically testable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-16T14:19:04Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Legal Reasoning Traces with Legal Issue Tree Rubrics [49.3262123849242]
  We introduce LEGIT (LEGal Issue Trees), a novel large-scale (24K instances) expert-level legal reasoning dataset.<n>We convert court judgments into hierarchical trees of opposing parties' arguments and the court's conclusions, which serve as rubrics for evaluating the issue coverage and correctness of the reasoning traces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-30T18:32:43Z)
• CLaw: Benchmarking Chinese Legal Knowledge in Large Language Models - A Fine-grained Corpus and Reasoning Analysis [13.067377421250557]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly tasked with analyzing legal texts and citing relevant statutes.<n>This paper introduces CLaw, a novel benchmark specifically engineered to meticulously evaluate LLMs on Chinese legal knowledge and its application in reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:19:51Z)
• L-MARS: Legal Multi-Agent Workflow with Orchestrated Reasoning and Agentic Search [3.662162441273026]
  L-MARS (Legal Multi-Agent with Orchestrated Reasoning and Agentic Search) is a system that reduces hallucination and uncertainty in legal question answering.<n>Unlike single-pass retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), L-MARS decomposes queries into subproblems.<n>It employs a Judge Agent to verify sufficiency, jurisdiction, and temporal validity before answer synthesis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-31T09:23:26Z)
• 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)
• LegalSearchLM: Rethinking Legal Case Retrieval as Legal Elements Generation [9.894351313663874]
  Legal Case Retrieval (LCR) is a fundamental task for legal professionals.<n>Existing studies on LCR face two major limitations.<n>First, they are evaluated on relatively small-scale retrieval corpora.<n>Second, their reliance on embedding-based or lexical matching methods often results in limited representations and legally irrelevant matches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T09:02:41Z)
• LegalAgentBench: Evaluating LLM Agents in Legal Domain [53.70993264644004]
  LegalAgentBench is a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLM Agents in the Chinese legal domain.<n>LegalAgentBench includes 17 corpora from real-world legal scenarios and provides 37 tools for interacting with external knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T04:02:46Z)

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.