Yueyue Wu

Haitao Li, Yunqiu Shao, Yueyue Wu et al.

As an important component of intelligent legal systems, legal case retrieval plays a critical role in ensuring judicial justice and fairness. However, the development of legal case retrieval technologies in the Chinese legal system is restricted by three problems in existing datasets: limited data size, narrow definitions of legal relevance, and naive candidate pooling strategies used in data sampling. To alleviate these issues, we introduce LeCaRDv2, a large-scale Legal Case Retrieval Dataset (version 2). It consists of 800 queries and 55,192 candidates extracted from 4.3 million criminal case documents. To the best of our knowledge, LeCaRDv2 is one of the largest Chinese legal case retrieval datasets, providing extensive coverage of criminal charges. Additionally, we enrich the existing relevance criteria by considering three key aspects: characterization, penalty, procedure. This comprehensive criteria enriches the dataset and may provides a more holistic perspective. Furthermore, we propose a two-level candidate set pooling strategy that effectively identify potential candidates for each query case. It's important to note that all cases in the dataset have been annotated by multiple legal experts specializing in criminal law. Their expertise ensures the accuracy and reliability of the annotations. We evaluate several state-of-the-art retrieval models at LeCaRDv2, demonstrating that there is still significant room for improvement in legal case retrieval. The details of LeCaRDv2 can be found at the anonymous website https://github.com/anonymous1113243/LeCaRDv2.

Yunqiu Shao, Haitao Li, Yueyue Wu et al. · tsinghua

Legal case retrieval is a special Information Retrieval~(IR) task focusing on legal case documents. Depending on the downstream tasks of the retrieved case documents, users' information needs in legal case retrieval could be significantly different from those in Web search and traditional ad-hoc retrieval tasks. While there are several studies that retrieve legal cases based on text similarity, the underlying search intents of legal retrieval users, as shown in this paper, are more complicated than that yet mostly unexplored. To this end, we present a novel hierarchical intent taxonomy of legal case retrieval. It consists of five intent types categorized by three criteria, i.e., search for Particular Case(s), Characterization, Penalty, Procedure, and Interest. The taxonomy was constructed transparently and evaluated extensively through interviews, editorial user studies, and query log analysis. Through a laboratory user study, we reveal significant differences in user behavior and satisfaction under different search intents in legal case retrieval. Furthermore, we apply the proposed taxonomy to various downstream legal retrieval tasks, e.g., result ranking and satisfaction prediction, and demonstrate its effectiveness. Our work provides important insights into the understanding of user intents in legal case retrieval and potentially leads to better retrieval techniques in the legal domain, such as intent-aware ranking strategies and evaluation methodologies.

Changyue Wang, Weihang Su, Hu Yiran et al.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly shaped the applications of AI in multiple fields, including the studies of legal intelligence. Trained on extensive legal texts, including statutes and legal documents, the legal LLMs can capture important legal knowledge/concepts effectively and provide important support for downstream legal applications such as legal consultancy. Yet, the dynamic nature of legal statutes and interpretations also poses new challenges to the use of LLMs in legal applications. Particularly, how to update the legal knowledge of LLMs effectively and efficiently has become an important research problem in practice. Existing benchmarks for evaluating knowledge update methods are mostly designed for the open domain and cannot address the specific challenges of the legal domain, such as the nuanced application of new legal knowledge, the complexity and lengthiness of legal regulations, and the intricate nature of legal reasoning. To address this gap, we introduce the Legal Knowledge Update BEnchmark, i.e. LeKUBE, which evaluates knowledge update methods for legal LLMs across five dimensions. Specifically, we categorize the needs of knowledge updates in the legal domain with the help of legal professionals, and then hire annotators from law schools to create synthetic updates to the Chinese Criminal and Civil Code as well as sets of questions of which the answers would change after the updates. Through a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art knowledge update methods, we reveal a notable gap between existing knowledge update methods and the unique needs of the legal domain, emphasizing the need for further research and development of knowledge update mechanisms tailored for legal LLMs.

Haitao Li, Junjie Chen, Jingli Yang et al.

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}.

Weihang Su, Baoqing Yue, Qingyao Ai et al.

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.

Ruizhe Zhang, Haitao Li, Yueyue Wu et al.

In recent years, the utilization of large language models for natural language dialogue has gained momentum, leading to their widespread adoption across various domains. However, their universal competence in addressing challenges specific to specialized fields such as law remains a subject of scrutiny. The incorporation of legal ethics into the model has been overlooked by researchers. We asserts that rigorous ethic evaluation is essential to ensure the effective integration of large language models in legal domains, emphasizing the need to assess domain-specific proficiency and domain-specific ethic. To address this, we propose a novelty evaluation methodology, utilizing authentic legal cases to evaluate the fundamental language abilities, specialized legal knowledge and legal robustness of large language models (LLMs). The findings from our comprehensive evaluation contribute significantly to the academic discourse surrounding the suitability and performance of large language models in legal domains.