Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Can Large Language Models Grasp Legal Theories? Enhance Legal Reasoning with Insights from Multi-Agent Collaboration

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.02507 v1 pith:CFEWG2CT submitted 2024-10-03 cs.AI cs.CL

classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords legalreasoningcomplexllmstheoriesframeworkbetterenhance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) could struggle to fully understand legal theories and perform complex legal reasoning tasks. In this study, we introduce a challenging task (confusing charge prediction) to better evaluate LLMs' understanding of legal theories and reasoning capabilities. We also propose a novel framework: Multi-Agent framework for improving complex Legal Reasoning capability (MALR). MALR employs non-parametric learning, encouraging LLMs to automatically decompose complex legal tasks and mimic human learning process to extract insights from legal rules, helping LLMs better understand legal theories and enhance their legal reasoning abilities. Extensive experiments on multiple real-world datasets demonstrate that the proposed framework effectively addresses complex reasoning issues in practical scenarios, paving the way for more reliable applications in the legal domain.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Narrative Memory in Machines: Multi-Agent Arc Extraction in Serialized TV

    cs.MM 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A multi-agent LLM system with a vector database extracts narrative arcs from TV episode summaries, scoring 89% precision on self-contained arcs while missing overlapping relationship arcs.

Pith tools