LexIssue: Benchmarking Legal Issue Identification in Chinese Civil Litigation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02954v1
• Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2026 01:49:59 GMT
• Title: LexIssue: Benchmarking Legal Issue Identification in Chinese Civil Litigation
• Abstract summary: We introduce a legally grounded hierarchical schema that represents legal issues through both free-form issue descriptions and structured legal categories.<n>We construct LexIssue, a benchmark containing 430 real-world Chinese civil litigation cases and 1,303 expert-annotated disputed legal issues.<n> Experimental results show that retrieval-augmented generation using the constructed legal issue knowledge base consistently improves performance in identifying disputed legal issues.
• Score: 6.798861249866644
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Identifying the issues disputed between litigating parties is a crucial component of real-world litigation. However, legal issues remain comparatively underexplored in legal AI research. In this work, we study the computational modelling of legal issue identification in litigation. We introduce a legally grounded hierarchical schema that represents legal issues through both free-form issue descriptions and structured legal categories, and formulate legal issue identification as two complementary tasks: legal issue generation and legal issue classification. Based on this formulation, we construct LexIssue, a benchmark containing 430 real-world Chinese civil litigation cases and 1,303 expert-annotated disputed legal issues. We further develop an issue-centric legal knowledge base spanning 27 causes of action and 441 candidate legal issue entries to support retrieval-augmented reasoning. Experimental results across a diverse set of models show that retrieval-augmented generation using the constructed legal issue knowledge base consistently improves performance in identifying disputed legal issues and their corresponding legal attributes.

Related papers

• 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)
• LexRel: Benchmarking Legal Relation Extraction for Chinese Civil Cases [30.208061617694025]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-14T11:16:39Z)
• ReaKase-8B: Legal Case Retrieval via Knowledge and Reasoning Representations with LLMs [37.688405624086315]
  A novel ReaKase-8B framework is proposed to leverage extracted legal facts, legal issues, legal relation triplets and legal reasoning for effective legal case retrieval.<n>Experiments on two benchmark datasets from COLIEE 2022 and COLIEE 2023 demonstrate that our knowledge and reasoning augmented embeddings substantially improve retrieval performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T06:35:36Z)
• 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)
• ClaimGen-CN: A Large-scale Chinese Dataset for Legal Claim Generation [56.79698529022327]
  Legal claims refer to the plaintiff's demands in a case and are essential to guiding judicial reasoning and case resolution.<n>This paper explores the problem of legal claim generation based on the given case's facts.<n>We construct ClaimGen-CN, the first dataset for Chinese legal claim generation task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-24T07:19:25Z)
• 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)
• Natural Language Processing for the Legal Domain: A Survey of Tasks, Datasets, Models, and Challenges [7.767611860493713]
  This survey follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework, reviewing 154 studies, with a final selection of 131 after manual filtering.<n>It explores foundational concepts related to NLP in the legal domain, illustrating the unique aspects and challenges of processing legal texts.<n>We provide an overview of NLP tasks specific to legal text, such as Document Summarisation, Named Entity Recognition, Question Answering, Argument Mining, Text Classification, and Judgement Prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T01:17:02Z)
• LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models [15.98468948605927]
  LegalBench is a benchmark consisting of 162 tasks covering six different types of legal reasoning. This paper describes LegalBench, presents an empirical evaluation of 20 open-source and commercial LLMs, and illustrates the types of research explorations LegalBench enables.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-20T22:08:03Z)
• SAILER: Structure-aware Pre-trained Language Model for Legal Case Retrieval [75.05173891207214]
  Legal case retrieval plays a core role in the intelligent legal system. Most existing language models have difficulty understanding the long-distance dependencies between different structures. We propose a new Structure-Aware pre-traIned language model for LEgal case Retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-22T10:47:01Z)
• Legal Element-oriented Modeling with Multi-view Contrastive Learning for Legal Case Retrieval [3.909749182759558]
  We propose an interaction-focused network for legal case retrieval with a multi-view contrastive learning objective. Case-view contrastive learning minimizes the hidden space distance between relevant legal case representations. We employ a legal element knowledge-aware indicator to detect legal elements of cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-11T06:47:23Z)

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.