REVIEW 2 cited by
Developing a Pragmatic Benchmark for Assessing Korean Legal Language Understanding in Large Language Models
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
read the original abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in the legal domain, with GPT-4 even passing the Uniform Bar Exam in the U.S. However their efficacy remains limited for non-standardized tasks and tasks in languages other than English. This underscores the need for careful evaluation of LLMs within each legal system before application. Here, we introduce KBL, a benchmark for assessing the Korean legal language understanding of LLMs, consisting of (1) 7 legal knowledge tasks (510 examples), (2) 4 legal reasoning tasks (288 examples), and (3) the Korean bar exam (4 domains, 53 tasks, 2,510 examples). First two datasets were developed in close collaboration with lawyers to evaluate LLMs in practical scenarios in a certified manner. Furthermore, considering legal practitioners' frequent use of extensive legal documents for research, we assess LLMs in both a closed book setting, where they rely solely on internal knowledge, and a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) setting, using a corpus of Korean statutes and precedents. The results indicate substantial room and opportunities for improvement.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
BLAD: A Historically Contextualized, Multilingual Dataset of Bangladeshi Legal Acts (1799 to 2025)
BLAD releases 1,484 Bangladeshi legal acts (1799–2025) with structural annotations and historical government context.
-
ASP2LJ : An Adversarial Self-Play Laywer Augmented Legal Judgment Framework
ASP2LJ combines synthetic case generation with adversarial self-play for lawyer agents, improving legal judgment prediction on a Chinese benchmark and on a new rare-case dataset.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.