As the scale and capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) increase, their applications in knowledge-intensive fields such as legal domain have garnered widespread attention. However, it remains doubtful whether these LLMs make judgments based on domain knowledge for reasoning. If LLMs base their judgments solely on specific words or patterns, rather than on the underlying logic of the language, the ''LLM-as-judges'' paradigm poses substantial risks in the real-world applications. To address this question, we propose a method of legal knowledge injection attacks for robustness testing, thereby inferring whether LLMs have learned legal knowledge and reasoning logic. In this paper, we propose J&H: an evaluation framework for detecting the robustness of LLMs under knowledge injection attacks in the legal domain. The aim of the framework is to explore whether LLMs perform deductive reasoning when accomplishing legal tasks. To further this aim, we have attacked each part of the reasoning logic underlying these tasks (major premise, minor premise, and conclusion generation). We have collected mistakes that legal experts might make in judicial decisions in the real world, such as typos, legal synonyms, inaccurate external legal statutes retrieval. However, in real legal practice, legal experts tend to overlook these mistakes and make judgments based on logic. However, when faced with these errors, LLMs are likely to be misled by typographical errors and may not utilize logic in their judgments. We conducted knowledge injection attacks on existing general and domain-specific LLMs. Current LLMs are not robust against the attacks employed in our experiments. In addition we propose and compare several methods to enhance the knowledge robustness of LLMs.

This paper introduces JuDGE (Judgment Document Generation Evaluation), a novel benchmark for evaluating the performance of judgment document generation in the Chinese legal system. We define the task as generating a complete legal judgment document from the given factual description of the case. To facilitate this benchmark, we construct a comprehensive dataset consisting of factual descriptions from real legal cases, paired with their corresponding full judgment documents, which serve as the ground truth for evaluating the quality of generated documents. This dataset is further augmented by two external legal corpora that provide additional legal knowledge for the task: one comprising statutes and regulations, and the other consisting of a large collection of past judgment documents. In collaboration with legal professionals, we establish a comprehensive automated evaluation framework to assess the quality of generated judgment documents across various dimensions. We evaluate various baseline approaches, including few-shot in-context learning, fine-tuning, and a multi-source retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approach, using both general and legal-domain LLMs. The experimental results demonstrate that, while RAG approaches can effectively improve performance in this task, there is still substantial room for further improvement. All the codes and datasets are available at: https://github.com/oneal2000/JuDGE.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has proven highly effective in improving large language models (LLMs) across various domains. However, there is no benchmark specifically designed to assess the effectiveness of RAG in the legal domain, which restricts progress in this area. To fill this gap, we propose LexRAG, the first benchmark to evaluate RAG systems for multi-turn legal consultations. LexRAG consists of 1,013 multi-turn dialogue samples and 17,228 candidate legal articles. Each sample is annotated by legal experts and consists of five rounds of progressive questioning. LexRAG includes two key tasks: (1) Conversational knowledge retrieval, requiring accurate retrieval of relevant legal articles based on multi-turn context. (2) Response generation, focusing on producing legally sound answers. To ensure reliable reproducibility, we develop LexiT, a legal RAG toolkit that provides a comprehensive implementation of RAG system components tailored for the legal domain. Additionally, we introduce an LLM-as-a-judge evaluation pipeline to enable detailed and effective assessment. Through experimental analysis of various LLMs and retrieval methods, we reveal the key limitations of existing RAG systems in handling legal consultation conversations. LexRAG establishes a new benchmark for the practical application of RAG systems in the legal domain, with its code and data available at https://github.com/CSHaitao/LexRAG.

Legal case documents play a critical role in judicial proceedings. As the number of cases continues to rise, the reliance on manual drafting of legal case documents is facing increasing pressure and challenges. The development of large language models (LLMs) offers a promising solution for automating document generation. However, existing benchmarks fail to fully capture the complexities involved in drafting legal case documents in real-world scenarios. To address this gap, we introduce CaseGen, the benchmark for multi-stage legal case documents generation in the Chinese legal domain. CaseGen is based on 500 real case samples annotated by legal experts and covers seven essential case sections. It supports four key tasks: drafting defense statements, writing trial facts, composing legal reasoning, and generating judgment results. To the best of our knowledge, CaseGen is the first benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs in the context of legal case document generation. To ensure an accurate and comprehensive evaluation, we design the LLM-as-a-judge evaluation framework and validate its effectiveness through human annotations. We evaluate several widely used general-domain LLMs and legal-specific LLMs, highlighting their limitations in case document generation and pinpointing areas for potential improvement. This work marks a step toward a more effective framework for automating legal case documents drafting, paving the way for the reliable application of AI in the legal field. The dataset and code are publicly available at https://github.com/CSHaitao/CaseGen.

The Four-Element Theory is a fundamental framework in criminal law, defining the constitution of crime through four dimensions: Subject, Object, Subjective aspect, and Objective aspect. This theory is widely referenced in legal reasoning, and many Large Language Models (LLMs) attempt to incorporate it when handling legal tasks. However, current approaches rely on LLMs' internal knowledge to incorporate this theory, often lacking completeness and representativeness. To address this limitation, we introduce JUREX-4E, an expert-annotated knowledge base covering 155 criminal charges. It is structured through a progressive hierarchical annotation framework that prioritizes legal source validity and employs diverse legal interpretation methods to ensure comprehensiveness and authority. We evaluate JUREX-4E on the Similar Charge Distinction task and apply it to Legal Case Retrieval, demonstrating its effectiveness in improving LLM performance. Experimental results validate the high quality of JUREX-4E and its substantial impact on downstream legal tasks, underscoring its potential for advancing legal AI applications. Code: https://github.com/THUlawtech/JUREX

With the increasing intelligence and autonomy of LLM agents, their potential applications in the legal domain are becoming increasingly apparent. However, existing general-domain benchmarks cannot fully capture the complexity and subtle nuances of real-world judicial cognition and decision-making. Therefore, we propose LegalAgentBench, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLM Agents in the Chinese legal domain. LegalAgentBench includes 17 corpora from real-world legal scenarios and provides 37 tools for interacting with external knowledge. We designed a scalable task construction framework and carefully annotated 300 tasks. These tasks span various types, including multi-hop reasoning and writing, and range across different difficulty levels, effectively reflecting the complexity of real-world legal scenarios. Moreover, beyond evaluating final success, LegalAgentBench incorporates keyword analysis during intermediate processes to calculate progress rates, enabling more fine-grained evaluation. We evaluated eight popular LLMs, highlighting the strengths, limitations, and potential areas for improvement of existing models and methods. LegalAgentBench sets a new benchmark for the practical application of LLMs in the legal domain, with its code and data available at \url{https://github.com/CSHaitao/LegalAgentBench}.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved high accuracy, i.e., more than 90% pass@1, in solving Python coding problems in HumanEval and MBPP. Thus, a natural question is, whether LLMs achieve comparable code completion performance compared to human developers? Unfortunately, one cannot answer this question using existing manual crafted or simple (e.g., single-line) code generation benchmarks, since such tasks fail to represent real-world software development tasks. In addition, existing benchmarks often use poor code correctness metrics, providing misleading conclusions. To address these challenges, we create REPOCOD, a code generation benchmark with 980 problems collected from 11 popular real-world projects, with more than 58% of them requiring file-level or repository-level context information. In addition, REPOCOD has the longest average canonical solution length (331.6 tokens) and the highest average cyclomatic complexity (9.00) compared to existing benchmarks. Each task in REPOCOD includes 313.5 developer-written test cases on average for better correctness evaluation. In our evaluations of ten LLMs, none of the models achieve more than 30% pass@1 on REPOCOD, indicating the necessity of building stronger LLMs that can help developers in real-world software development. REPOCOD is available at https://github.com/lt-asset/REPOCOD

Despite significant advancements in large language models (LLMs) that enhance robot agents' understanding and execution of natural language (NL) commands, ensuring the agents adhere to user-specified constraints remains challenging, particularly for complex commands and long-horizon tasks. To address this challenge, we present three key insights, equivalence voting, constrained decoding, and domain-specific fine-tuning, which significantly enhance LLM planners' capability in handling complex tasks. Equivalence voting ensures consistency by generating and sampling multiple Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) formulas from NL commands, grouping equivalent LTL formulas, and selecting the majority group of formulas as the final LTL formula. Constrained decoding then uses the generated LTL formula to enforce the autoregressive inference of plans, ensuring the generated plans conform to the LTL. Domain-specific fine-tuning customizes LLMs to produce safe and efficient plans within specific task domains. Our approach, Safe Efficient LLM Planner (SELP), combines these insights to create LLM planners to generate plans adhering to user commands with high confidence. We demonstrate the effectiveness and generalizability of SELP across different robot agents and tasks, including drone navigation and robot manipulation. For drone navigation tasks, SELP outperforms state-of-the-art planners by 10.8% in safety rate (i.e., finishing tasks conforming to NL commands) and by 19.8% in plan efficiency. For robot manipulation tasks, SELP achieves 20.4% improvement in safety rate. Our datasets for evaluating NL-to-LTL and robot task planning will be released in github.com/lt-asset/selp.

Similar case retrieval (SCR) is a representative legal AI application that plays a pivotal role in promoting judicial fairness. However, existing SCR datasets only focus on the fact description section when judging the similarity between cases, ignoring other valuable sections (e.g., the court's opinion) that can provide insightful reasoning process behind. Furthermore, the case similarities are typically measured solely by the textual semantics of the fact descriptions, which may fail to capture the full complexity of legal cases from the perspective of legal knowledge. In this work, we present MUSER, a similar case retrieval dataset based on multi-view similarity measurement and comprehensive legal element with sentence-level legal element annotations. Specifically, we select three perspectives (legal fact, dispute focus, and law statutory) and build a comprehensive and structured label schema of legal elements for each of them, to enable accurate and knowledgeable evaluation of case similarities. The constructed dataset originates from Chinese civil cases and contains 100 query cases and 4,024 candidate cases. We implement several text classification algorithms for legal element prediction and various retrieval methods for retrieving similar cases on MUSER. The experimental results indicate that incorporating legal elements can benefit the performance of SCR models, but further efforts are still required to address the remaining challenges posed by MUSER. The source code and dataset are released at https://github.com/THUlawtech/MUSER.