Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 5 cited by

When Large Language Models Meet Law: Dual-Lens Taxonomy, Technical Advances, and Ethical Governance

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This review argues that all LLM work in law can be organized by a dual-lens taxonomy pairing Toulmin's six argument components with professional legal roles.

desk verdict Useful but overclaiming survey: the dual-lens taxonomy is a reasonable scaffold, yet it is asserted rather than validated, and the promised computational implementation is missing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07748 v1 pith:2IYQELL6 submitted 2025-07-10 cs.CL cs.AI

Peizhang Shao , Linrui Xu , Jinxi Wang , Wei Zhou , Xingyu Wu This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords largelanguagemodelslegalartificialintelligenceToulminargumentationframeworkdual-lenstaxonomyreasoningjudgmentpredictionethicssurvey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to give the field of legal artificial intelligence a single organizing structure: a dual-lens taxonomy that pairs the Toulmin model of argumentation with professional legal roles. It argues that every major LLM legal application can be placed within one of Toulmin's six components—Data, Warrant, Backing, Qualifier, Rebuttal, and Claim—and that this placement maps naturally onto what lawyers, judges, and litigants actually do. If the taxonomy holds, it gives researchers a roadmap and practitioners a shared vocabulary, unifying scattered work on summarization, retrieval, judgment prediction, and dispute resolution. The paper also documents the main obstacles to adoption: hallucinated citations, opaque reasoning, jurisdictional adaptation failures, and unequal access that creates ethical asymmetry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Toulmin model of argumentation, a six-component schema (Data, Warrant, Backing, Qualifier, Rebuttal, Claim) that the paper treats as a computational decomposition of legal reasoning. It is paired with a role ontology drawn from litigation and non-litigation procedures. The taxonomy does the organizing work: each LLM capability is assigned to a Toulmin slot, each slot to a professional practice, so the survey becomes a map rather than a list.

What would settle it

Take a broad sample of legal LLM systems and tasks from recent literature and try to assign each to exactly one Toulmin component; if tasks such as multi-agent negotiation, procedural case management, or e-discovery orchestration fit no single slot cleanly, the taxonomy's claimed comprehensive coverage fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the convergence of large language models and law can be comprehensively organized by a dual-lens taxonomy. The first lens is the Toulmin argumentation framework, computationally implemented so that legal text summarization, element identification, and classification fall under Data; case and statute retrieval under Backing; long-text processing, knowledge integration, and low-resource adaptation under Warrant; judgment prediction and document generation under Claim; and rebuttal handling under Rebuttal. The second lens maps these components to professional roles—judges, lawyers, litigants, prosecutors, defendants, mediators, and arbitrators—across litigation and alternative dispute resolution workflows. On this view, LLMs are assistive tools that complete the external justification side of legal reasoning while human professionals remain the ultimate arbiters. The paper further claims that three technical directions—context scalability, knowledge integration, and evaluation rigor—are the pillars that make this integration work.

Load-bearing premise

The taxonomy assumes that Toulmin's six argument components form a complete, non-overlapping partition of everything LLMs do in legal work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can classify any new legal LLM system by its Toulmin slot and target role, making the survey usable as a roadmap rather than a catalogue.
  • The three technical pillars—sparse attention for long context, knowledge-graph-grounded mixture-of-experts for grounding, and legal benchmarks for evaluation—define a concrete engineering agenda for more reliable legal AI.
  • Legal professional ethics gains a new explicit duty: technological competence, with bar associations and firms accountable for supervising and verifying LLM output.
  • LLMs are positioned as assistive tools rather than decision-makers, implying that deployment should preserve human oversight at critical judicial junctures.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The completeness of the Toulmin partition is empirically testable: a corpus study of legal NLP task descriptions could measure how many tasks straddle or escape the six slots, something the paper does not attempt.
  • The dual-lens map could be extended to alternative argumentation frameworks to check whether Toulmin is the most useful decomposition for LLM engineering, not just a historically popular one.
  • If adopted, the taxonomy suggests new benchmark designs organized by argumentation component rather than by NLP task type, letting evaluation target legal-reasoning gaps directly.
  • The paper's treatment of ethical asymmetry implies that equal access to legal LLMs is a governance question, not only a technical one; regulators could use the role-based map to identify which parties are most disadvantaged.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper surveys large language models (LLMs) in the legal domain and proposes a 'dual-lens' taxonomy that combines the Toulmin argumentation framework (Data, Warrant, Backing, Qualifier, Rebuttal, Claim) with legal professional roles (judges, lawyers, litigants). It traces the evolution from symbolic AI and small neural models to modern LLMs (Section 2), organizes legal reasoning tasks according to the Toulmin components (Section 3), discusses LLM integration in litigation and alternative dispute resolution (Section 4), reviews technological and professional ethics (Section 5), and outlines future directions (Section 6). The paper also provides a GitHub repository indexing the surveyed literature and claims to be the 'first comprehensive review' of LLMs in law that 'computationally implements the Toulmin argumentation framework.'

Significance. If the central claims were fully supported, the paper would be a valuable organizing resource for the legal-AI community: it aggregates a large body of recent work (215 references), structures it along two intuitive axes, and offers a role-based treatment of litigation and non-litigation workflows that is rare in prior surveys. The ethical section is also practically useful, connecting professional-responsibility doctrines to concrete LLM risks. The paper's strengths are its breadth, its attempt to bridge jurisprudential reasoning theory with NLP tasks, and the public GitHub index. However, the paper is a narrative survey with no machine-checked proofs, no code, and no corpus-level validation of its proposed taxonomy; the claimed 'computational implementation' of Toulmin's framework is not present in the manuscript. The paper would benefit from recalibrating its novelty claims and either validating the taxonomy or explicitly presenting it as a heuristic organizational lens.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Section 1, 'Previous reviews' paragraph] The abstract and Section 1 claim that this is 'the first comprehensive review' of LLMs in law, but the paper itself cites several prior broad surveys of the same scope, including Lai et al. [96] ('Large language models in law: A survey'), Siino et al. [165], Anh et al. [6], Ariai and Demartini [8], and Yang et al. [203]. The statement that 'there is no review or discussion of the rules for legal professionals to use large models' is also difficult to reconcile with [165] and with the ethical/professional-role literature cited later. Please either remove 'first comprehensive' or specify the precise criteria (e.g., coverage of both Toulmin-based reasoning and professional roles) that distinguish this survey from the cited ones.
  2. [Section 3.1, Fig. 5; Sections 3.4.1-3.4.3; Section 3.5] The central dual-lens taxonomy is asserted rather than validated. The Toulmin component Rebuttal (R) is listed in Fig. 5 ('argument mining / dispute focus identification') but has no corresponding subsection; Section 3.5 conflates Claims, Qualifiers, and Rebuttals under 'legal judgment prediction with qualifiers' without explaining why those three components collapse into one task class. Moreover, Section 3.4 classifies long-text processing and pretrained model development (3.4.1), legal knowledge enhancement and multimodal innovation (3.4.2), and low-resource applications (3.4.3) under Warrant (W), but these are enabling techniques or resource settings, not warrant-generation tasks. No corpus-level coding or comparison with alternative legal-reasoning frameworks (e.g., the judicial syllogism described in Section 3.1, or Lai et al. [96]) is provided to justify the claim of comprehensive coverage. Please restructure the section to match the taxonomy, or explicitly reframe the taxonomy as a heuristic mapping rather than a validated partition.
  3. [Abstract; Section 1, contribution bullet] The claim that the paper 'computationally implements the Toulmin argumentation framework' is unsupported by the manuscript. No algorithm, formalization, code, or executable artifact is provided in Sections 3-6 or the linked GitHub repository description; the repository is described only as an index of relevant papers. Similarly, the claim in Section 1 that the taxonomy 'implement[s] Bex's evidence theory at scale' is not substantiated by any implementation or evaluation. Please remove these computational-implementation claims or provide the actual implementation and evidence.
  4. [Section 1 (hallucination discussion) and Section 3.4.2] The same study, Dahl et al. [44] ('Large Legal Fictions'), is cited with two different error rates: the introduction states that cross-jurisdictional question answering systems exhibit 'error rates as high as 58% [44]', while Section 3.4.2 says the study identifies '42% error rates across 12 jurisdictions'. Since hallucination statistics are a key motivation in the introduction, this inconsistency undermines the reliability of the survey's factual claims. Please verify the source and use one consistent figure throughout.
  5. [Tables 2 and 3] Several entries in the toolbox and dataset tables do not match the text or the cited references. For example, Table 2 attributes 'BERT-PLI' to Shao et al. [158], but Section 3.3.1 credits BERT-PLI to Shao et al. [160] and describes a different method; reference [158] is a 2021 BERT-based ensemble paper, not the 2020 BERT-PLI paper. Table 3 lists 'NLJP' as a dataset with creator Chalkidis et al. [35], but [35] is a model paper on neural legal judgment prediction, not a dataset named NLJP. Since the tables are presented as a systematic resource, all entries should be rechecked against the cited references and corrected.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.3.2] There are garbled passages, e.g., 'Gleichzeitig, a a critical evaluation emerged othe performance of the method [85] and the efficacy of pre-trainingicacy of pre-training [213]'; these should be rewritten and the duplicated words removed.
  2. [Figures 3 and 5] Fig. 3 and Fig. 5 appear to be identical images with different captions ('Framework of Toulmin Model' vs. 'Decomposition of Legal Reasoning Tasks Based on LLMs'). If they are indeed duplicates, one should be removed or the figures should be differentiated with the intended content.
  3. [Section 5, introductory paragraph] The text says the collaboration mechanism is 'illustrated in Figure 5', but the relevant figure appears to be Fig. 6 ('The Collaboration of Technological Ethics and Legal Ethics'). Please fix the cross-reference.
  4. [Section 3.4.3] The future-directions bullet cites '[195, 195]' twice and contains the incomplete phrase 'resistance to AI-generated content interference using new architecture [208]'; please complete the sentence and remove the duplicate citation.
  5. [Reference list] Some references are incomplete or inconsistent (e.g., [35] is listed as a dataset source in Table 3 but is a model paper; [158] and [160] are conflated in Table 2). A systematic check of all citations against their in-text uses is needed.
  6. [Throughout] There are frequent typos and grammatical slips (e.g., 'insuch asks' in Section 6, 'muti-agent' in Section 6, 'a a' in Section 3.3.2). The manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the dual-lens taxonomy is an organizing assertion rather than a derived result, and the paper's self-citations are illustrative, not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a survey, so the standard circularity failure modes—fitting a parameter to data and then renaming that fit a prediction, or defining X in terms of Y and then deriving Y from X—do not apply, and the paper contains no equations whose outputs are equivalent to their inputs by construction. The central claim is the Toulmin-based dual-lens taxonomy (Section 3.1, Fig. 5), which maps surveyed legal NLP tasks onto D, W, B, Q, C, and R components; that mapping is asserted as a categorical organization rather than computationally derived, so objections that the partition is not corpus-validated, that Rebuttal has no dedicated subsection, or that Section 3.4's Warrant bucket includes long-text processing and low-resource settings are coherence or completeness concerns, not circularity. The self-citations in the reference list—[190] (Wang et al., with co-author Wei Zhou), [197] (Wu et al.), and [198] (Wu et al.)—appear as illustrative landmarks in the evolution narrative, as a causal-selection retrieval example, and in a bias discussion, respectively; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the justification for the taxonomy's central mapping, so they are not load-bearing. An abstract claim that the review 'computationally implements the Toulmin argumentation framework' is unsupported by the body text, but an unsupported or overclaimed slogan is not a circular step. Since no specific reduction to the paper's own inputs is exhibited, the honest finding is no significant circularity, with only a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation footprint.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims are the comprehensiveness of the review and the validity of the dual-lens taxonomy. Both rest on assumptions the paper adopts without independent validation: Toulmin's model is a complete decomposition of legal reasoning (Sec 3.1), the selected literature represents the field (Sec 2 through 3), and the chosen benchmarks are the right yardsticks (Sec 3.3 through 3.5). No numerical free parameters are fitted in a survey; the only invented entity is the taxonomy itself, which makes no falsifiable prediction.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Toulmin's argumentation model is a valid and complete decomposition of legal reasoning for organizing LLM tasks
    Sec 3.1 and Fig 5 map all reviewed tasks into D/W/B/Q/R/C slots; no validation or comparison against alternative argumentation frameworks (e.g., Walton schemes) is given.
  • domain assumption The surveyed literature is representative of the LLM-legal field
    Sec 2 and Sec 3 select 'landmark' works without a disclosed search protocol or inclusion criteria; the paper dismisses prior surveys without quantifying comparative coverage.
  • domain assumption COLIEE, LawBench, LexGLUE, and LegalBench are the right evaluative ground truth for legal LLM progress
    Sec 3.3 through 3.5 use these benchmarks as evidence of progress; the benchmarks' own design limitations are outside the review's control.
invented entities (1)
  • Dual-lens taxonomy (Toulmin components times legal roles)
    purpose: Organize the surveyed literature into sections; claimed as the paper's principal contribution
    A conceptual scaffold over existing papers; it makes no falsifiable prediction and no computational implementation is shipped despite the abstract's claim that it 'computationally implements' the Toulmin framework.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of When Large Language Models Meet Law: Dual-Lens Taxonomy, Technical Advances, and Ethical Governance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2IYQELL6

@misc{pith2026250707748,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: When Large Language Models Meet Law: Dual-Lens Taxonomy, Technical Advances, and Ethical Governance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2IYQELL6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07748}
}
read the original abstract

This paper establishes the first comprehensive review of Large Language Models (LLMs) applied within the legal domain. It pioneers an innovative dual lens taxonomy that integrates legal reasoning frameworks and professional ontologies to systematically unify historical research and contemporary breakthroughs. Transformer-based LLMs, which exhibit emergent capabilities such as contextual reasoning and generative argumentation, surmount traditional limitations by dynamically capturing legal semantics and unifying evidence reasoning. Significant progress is documented in task generalization, reasoning formalization, workflow integration, and addressing core challenges in text processing, knowledge integration, and evaluation rigor via technical innovations like sparse attention mechanisms and mixture-of-experts architectures. However, widespread adoption of LLM introduces critical challenges: hallucination, explainability deficits, jurisdictional adaptation difficulties, and ethical asymmetry. This review proposes a novel taxonomy that maps legal roles to NLP subtasks and computationally implements the Toulmin argumentation framework, thus systematizing advances in reasoning, retrieval, prediction, and dispute resolution. It identifies key frontiers including low-resource systems, multimodal evidence integration, and dynamic rebuttal handling. Ultimately, this work provides both a technical roadmap for researchers and a conceptual framework for practitioners navigating the algorithmic future, laying a robust foundation for the next era of legal artificial intelligence. We have created a GitHub repository to index the relevant papers: https://github.com/Kilimajaro/LLMs_Meet_Law.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07748 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A general framework for integrated research of LLMs and Law [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of Legal NLP Models: From Task-Specific Small Models to Large Models Era [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Framework of Toulmin Model. Legal norms reasoning Facts reasoning Legal judgement reasoning W→ B D-Digiting D,W→Q-C Judicial syllogism Toulmin model LLMs Enhancing Minor Premise Reasoning Major Premise Reasoning Conclusion Reasoning Minor Premise Reasoning Major Premise Reasoning Conclusion Reasoning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relationships between formal reasoning and informal reasoning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Decomposition of Legal Reasoning Tasks Based on LLMs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Collaboration of Technological Ethics and Legal Ethics when applying LLMs in legal domain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Fixing FOLIO and MALLS: Verified Annotations and an LLM-assisted Framework to Focus Human Relabeling

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Audit finds 36-39% incorrect FOL labels in FOLIO and MALLS; corrections raise LLM accuracy 9-22 points and an LLM-guided review framework achieves 90% dataset quality after checking fewer than 24% of examples.

  2. LAMUS: A Large-Scale Corpus for Legal Argument Mining from U.S. Caselaw using LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LAMUS adds a roughly 2.9-million-sentence LLM-labeled corpus of U.S. Supreme Court opinions to legal argument mining, with a smaller human-verified Texas benchmark.

  3. LegalCheck: Retrieval- and Context-Augmented Generation for Drafting Municipal Legal Advice Letters

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    LegalCheck automates drafting of municipal legal advice letters via RAG and CAG, producing near-final drafts in minutes with 80-100% coverage of essential legal reasoning in an Amsterdam deployment.

  4. Inteligencia Artificial jur\'idica y el desaf\'io de la veracidad: an\'alisis de alucinaciones, optimizaci\'on de RAG y principios para una integraci\'on responsable

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Legal AI hallucination persists in commercial RAG tools (17-34%+ of queries), so the report argues the fix is consultative, source-citing system design plus mandatory human oversight, not better generative models.

  5. LegalCheck: Retrieval- and Context-Augmented Generation for Drafting Municipal Legal Advice Letters

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    LegalCheck applies RAG and CAG to generate draft legal advice letters from laws and precedents, achieving 80-100% coverage of essential reasoning in minutes during a municipal deployment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

221 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [96]

    Jinqi Lai, Wensheng Gan, Jiayang Wu, Zhenlian Qi, and Philip S Yu. 2024. Large language models in law: A survey. AI Open (2024)

    2024

  2. [165]

    Rui Shao, Yiping Tang, Lingyan Yang, and Fang Wang. 2025. Law LLM Unlearning via Interfere Prompt, Review Output and Update Parameter: New Challenges, Method and Baseline. Expert Systems with Applications (2025), 128612. ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111. Publication date: June 2025. 111:32 Shao et al

    2025

  3. [6]

    Dang Hoang Anh, Dinh-Truong Do, Vu Tran, and Nguyen Le Minh. 2023. The impact of large language modeling on natural language processing in legal texts: a comprehensive survey. In2023 15th International Conference on Knowledge and Systems Engineering (KSE) . IEEE, 1–7

    2023

  4. [8]

    Farid Ariai and Gianluca Demartini. 2024. Natural Language Processing for the Legal Domain: A Survey of Tasks, Datasets, Models, and Challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21306 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  5. [203]

    Xiaoxian Yang, Zhifeng Wang, Qi Wang, Ke Wei, Kaiqi Zhang, and Jiangang Shi. 2024. Large language models for automated q&a involving legal documents: a survey on algorithms, frameworks and applications. International Journal of Web Information Systems 20, 4 (2024), 413–435

    work page 2024

  6. [44]

    Matthew Dahl, Varun Magesh, Mirac Suzgun, and Daniel E Ho. 2024. Large legal fictions: Profiling legal hallucinations in large language models. Journal of Legal Analysis 16, 1 (2024), 64–93

    2024

  7. [158]

    Hsuan-Lei Shao, Yi-Chia Chen, and Sieh-Chuen Huang. 2021. BERT-based ensemble model for statute law retrieval and legal information entailment. In New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence: JSAI-isAI 2020 Workshops, JURISIN, LENLS 2020 Workshops, Virtual Event, November 15–17, 2020, Revised Selected Papers 12 . Springer, 226–239

    2021

  8. [160]

    Sneha Ann Reji, Reshma Sheik, A Sharon, Avisha Rai, and S Jaya Nirmala. 2024. Enhancing LLM Performance on Legal Textual Entailment with Few-Shot CoT-based RAG. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Signal Processing, Informatics, Communication and Energy Systems (SPICES) . IEEE, 1–6

    2024

  9. [35]

    Salvatore Caserta. 2022. The sociology of the legal profession in the digital age. International Journal of the Legal Profession 29, 3 (2022), 319–334

    2022

Show all 221 references
  1. [1]

    Andrew Abbott. 1981. Status and status strain in the professions. American journal of sociology 86, 4 (1981), 819–835

    1981

  2. [2]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  3. [3]

    Guilherme FCF Almeida, José Luiz Nunes, Neele Engelmann, Alex Wiegmann, and Marcelo de Araújo. 2024. Exploring the psychology of LLMs’ moral and legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 333 (2024), 104145

    2024

  4. [4]

    American Bar Association Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence. 2024. Year 1 Report on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Practice of Law: Legal Challenges. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba- news-archives/2024/08/aba-task-force-report-ai-opportuni...

    2024

  5. [5]

    Deepa Anand and Rupali Wagh. 2022. Effective deep learning approaches for summarization of legal texts. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences 34, 5 (2022), 2141–2150

    2022

  6. [7]

    Michał Araszkiewicz, Trevor Bench-Capon, Enrico Francesconi, Marc Lauritsen, and Antonino Rotolo. 2022. Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: overviews. Artificial Intelligence and Law 30, 4 (2022), 593–610

    2022

  7. [9]

    Purposefully Vague

    A. Arrington. 2024. "Purposefully Vague" or Problematic? Why Lawyers Must Define the Duty of Tech Competence. University of St. Thomas Law Journal 20 (2024), 218–245

    2024

  8. [10]

    Kevin D Ashley. 2017. Artificial intelligence and legal analytics: new tools for law practice in the digital age . Cambridge University Press

    2017

  9. [11]

    Jamie J Baker. 2017. Beyond the information age: the duty of technology competence in the algorithmic society. SCL Rev. 69 (2017), 557

    2017

  10. [12]

    Ryan C Barron, Maksim E Eren, Olga M Serafimova, Cynthia Matuszek, and Boian S Alexandrov. 2025. Bridging Legal Knowledge and AI: Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Vector Stores, Knowledge Graphs, and Hierarchical ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111. Publication d...

    2025 arXiv

  11. [13]

    Mihir Abhay Bedekar, Manoj Pareek, Saurabh Suman Choudhuri, PF Abhishek, Jayesh Jhurani, and Rutul Shah

  12. [14]

    Iz Beltagy, Matthew E Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05150 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  13. [15]

    Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 610–623

    2021

  14. [16]

    Irene Benedetto, Luca Cagliero, Michele Ferro, Francesco Tarasconi, Claudia Bernini, and Giuseppe Giacalone. 2025. Leveraging large language models for abstractive summarization of Italian legal news. Artificial Intelligence and Law (2025), 1–21

    2025

  15. [17]

    Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed, and Douglas Walton. 2003. Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2003), 125–165

    2003

  16. [18]

    Floris Bex and Bart Verheij. 2013. Legal stories and the process of proof. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (2013), 253–278

    2013

  17. [19]

    Floris J Bex. 2011. Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: A formal hybrid theory . Vol. 92. Springer Science & Business Media

    2011

  18. [20]

    Piotr Bialowolski and Dorota Weziak-Bialowolska. 2021. What Does It Take to Be a Good Lawyer? The Underpinnings of Success in a Rapidly Growing Legal Market. Sustainability 13, 11 (2021), 5841

    2021

  19. [21]

    Onur Bilgin, Logan Fields, Antonio Laverghetta Jr, Zaid Marji, Animesh Nighojkar, Stephen Steinle, and John Licato

  20. [22]

    Su Lin Blodgett, Solon Barocas, Hal Daumé III, and Hanna Wallach. 2020. Language (technology) is power: A critical survey of" bias" in nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14050 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  21. [23]

    The Review of Socionetwork Strategies (2024), 1–26

    Exploring Prompting Approaches in Legal Textual Entailment. The Review of Socionetwork Strategies (2024), 1–26

    2024

  22. [24]

    Su Lin Blodgett, Gilsinia Lopez, Alexandra Olteanu, Robert Sim, and Hanna Wallach. 2021. Stereotyping Norwegian salmon: An inventory of pitfalls in fairness benchmark datasets. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 1...

    2021

  23. [25]

    Su Lin Blodgett, Lisa Green, and Brendan O’Connor. 2016. Demographic dialectal variation in social media: A case study of African-American English. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.08868 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  24. [26]

    Guido Boella, Luigi Di Caro, and Llio Humphreys. 2011. Using classification to support legal knowledge engineers in the Eunomos legal document management system. In Fifth international workshop on Juris-informatics (JURISIN)

    2011

  25. [27]

    Su Lin Blodgett and Brendan O’Connor. 2017. Racial disparity in natural language processing: A case study of social media african-american english. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.00061 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  26. [28]

    Rishi Bommasani, Drew A Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, et al. 2021. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  27. [29]

    Michael Bommarito II and Daniel Martin Katz. 2022. GPT takes the bar exam. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14402 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  28. [30]

    Ben Buchanan, Andrew Lohn, Micah Musser, and Katerina Sedova. 2021. Truth, lies, and automation. Center for Security and Emerging technology 1, 1 (2021), 2

    2021

  29. [31]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 1877–1901

    2020

  30. [32]

    Roberta Calegari, Giuseppe Contissa, Francesca Lagioia, Andrea Omicini, and Giovanni Sartor. 2019. Defeasible systems in legal reasoning: A comparative assessment. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems . IOS Press, 169–174

    2019

  31. [33]

    Minh-Quan Bui, Dinh-Truong Do, Nguyen-Khang Le, Dieu-Hien Nguyen, Khac-Vu-Hiep Nguyen, Trang Pham Ngoc Anh, and Minh Le Nguyen. 2024. Data Augmentation and Large Language Model for Legal Case Retrieval and Entailment. The Review of Socionetwork Strategies 18, 1 (2024), 49–74

    2024

  32. [34]

    Ilias Chalkidis and Ion Androutsopoulos. 2017. A deep learning approach to contract element extraction. In Legal knowledge and information systems . IOS Press, 155–164

    2017

  33. [36]

    Ilias Chalkidis, Abhik Jana, Dirk Hartung, Michael Bommarito, Ion Androutsopoulos, Daniel Martin Katz, and Nikolaos Aletras. 2021. LexGLUE: A benchmark dataset for legal language understanding in English. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.00976 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  34. [37]

    Ilias Chalkidis, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Nikolaos Aletras. 2019. Neural legal judgment prediction in English. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.02059 (2019). ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111. Publication date: June 2025. When Large Language Models Meet Law: Dual-Lens Ta...

    2019 arXiv

  35. [38]

    Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V Le, and Christopher D Manning. 2020. Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10555 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  36. [39]

    Haihua Chen, Lei Wu, Jiangping Chen, Wei Lu, and Junhua Ding. 2022. A comparative study of automated legal text classification using random forests and deep learning. Information Processing & Management 59, 2 (2022), 102798

    2022

  37. [40]

    Florin Cuconasu, Simone Filice, Guy Horowitz, Yoelle Maarek, and Fabrizio Silvestri. 2025. Do RAG Systems Suffer From Positional Bias? arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15561 (2025)

    2025

  38. [41]

    Joe Collenette, Katie Atkinson, and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2023. Explainable AI tools for legal reasoning about cases: A study on the European Court of Human Rights. Artificial Intelligence 317 (2023), 103861

    2023

  39. [42]

    Jiaxi Cui, Munan Ning, Zongjian Li, Bohua Chen, Yang Yan, Hao Li, Bin Ling, Yonghong Tian, and Li Yuan. 2024. Chatlaw: A multi-agent collaborative legal assistant with knowledge graph enhanced mixture-of-experts large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16092 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  40. [43]

    Jiaxi Cui, Zongjian Li, Yang Yan, Bohua Chen, and Li Yuan. 2023. Chatlaw: Open-source legal large language model with integrated external knowledge bases. CoRR (2023)

    2023

  41. [45]

    Junyun Cui, Xiaoyu Shen, and Shaochun Wen. 2023. A survey on legal judgment prediction: Datasets, metrics, models and challenges. IEEE Access (2023)

    2023

  42. [46]

    Chenlong Deng, Kelong Mao, Yuyao Zhang, and Zhicheng Dou. 2024. Enabling discriminative reasoning in llms for legal judgment prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01964 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  43. [47]

    Yongfu Dai, Duanyu Feng, Jimin Huang, Haochen Jia, Qianqian Xie, Yifang Zhang, Weiguang Han, Wei Tian, and Hao Wang. 2023. LAiW: a Chinese legal large language models benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05620 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  44. [48]

    Aniket Deroy, Kripabandhu Ghosh, and Saptarshi Ghosh. 2024. Applicability of large language models and generative models for legal case judgement summarization. Artificial Intelligence and Law (2024), 1–44

    2024

  45. [49]

    Wentao Deng, Jiahuan Pei, Keyi Kong, Zhe Chen, Furu Wei, Yujun Li, Zhaochun Ren, Zhumin Chen, and Pengjie Ren

  46. [50]

    Sanjeev Dewan and Frederick J Riggins. 2005. The digital divide: Current and future research directions. Journal of the Association for information systems 6, 12 (2005), 298–337

    2005

  47. [51]

    Johannes Dimyadi, Guido Governatori, and Robert Amor. 2017. Evaluating legaldocml and legalruleml as a standard for sharing normative information in the aec/fm domain. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Computing in Construction (JC3), Vol. 1. Heriot-Watt University, Ed...

    2017

  48. [52]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human...

    2019

  49. [53]

    Ronald Dworkin. 1986. Law’s empire. Harvard University Press

    1986

  50. [54]

    Mohamed Elaraby, Huihui Xu, Morgan Gray, Kevin D Ashley, and Diane Litman. 2024. Adding Argumentation into Human Evaluation of Long Document Abstractive Summarization: A Case Study on Legal Opinions. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Human Evaluation of NLP Systems (Hum...

    2024

  51. [55]

    Stefan Daniel Dumitrescu and Andrei-Marius Avram. 2019. Introducing RONEC–the Romanian Named Entity Corpus. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01247 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  52. [56]

    Zhiwei Fei, Xiaoyu Shen, Dawei Zhu, Fengzhe Zhou, Zhuo Han, Songyang Zhang, Kai Chen, Zongwen Shen, and Jidong Ge. 2023. Lawbench: Benchmarking legal knowledge of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16289 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  53. [57]

    Zhiwei Fei, Songyang Zhang, Xiaoyu Shen, Dawei Zhu, Xiao Wang, Maosong Cao, Fengzhe Zhou, Yining Li, Wenwei Zhang, Dahua Lin, et al. 2024. Internlm-law: An open source chinese legal large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14887 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  54. [58]

    Yu Fan, Jingwei Ni, Jakob Merane, Etienne Salimbeni, Yang Tian, Yoan Hermstrüwer, Yinya Huang, Mubashara Akhtar, Florian Geering, Oliver Dreyer, et al. 2025. LEXam: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning on 340 Law Exams. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12864 (2025)

    2025

  55. [59]

    Enrico Francesconi. 2014. A description logic framework for advanced accessing and reasoning over normative provisions. Artificial intelligence and Law 22, 3 (2014), 291–311. ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111. Publication date: June 2025. 111:28 Shao et al

    2014

  56. [60]

    Masaki Fujita, Takaaki Onaga, and Yoshinobu Kano. 2024. LLM Tuning and Interpretable CoT: KIS Team in COLIEE

    2024

  57. [61]

    Yi Feng, Chuanyi Li, and Vincent Ng. 2022. Legal judgment prediction via event extraction with constraints. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) . 648–664

    2022

  58. [62]

    J García Fernández. 2024. Ontology Engineering with Large Language Models. (2024)

    2024

  59. [63]

    Jidong Ge, Yunyun Huang, Xiaoyu Shen, Chuanyi Li, and Wei Hu. 2021. Learning fine-grained fact-article correspon- dence in legal cases. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 29 (2021), 3694–3706

    2021

  60. [64]

    Springer, 140–155

    In JSAI International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence . Springer, 140–155

  61. [65]

    Leilei Gan, Kun Kuang, Yi Yang, and Fei Wu. 2021. Judgment prediction via injecting legal knowledge into neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 35. 12866–12874

    2021

  62. [66]

    Randy Goebel, Yoshinobu Kano, Mi-Young Kim, Juliano Rabelo, Ken Satoh, and Masaharu Yoshioka. 2024. Overview and Discussion of the Competition on Legal Information, Extraction/Entailment (COLIEE) 2023. The Review of Socionetwork Strategies 18, 1 (2024), 27–47

    2024

  63. [67]

    Robert Gorwa, Reuben Binns, and Christian Katzenbach. 2020. Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society 7, 1 (2020), 2053951719897945

    2020

  64. [68]

    Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A Smith. 2020. Realtoxicityprompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.11462 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  65. [69]

    Sudipto Ghosh, Devanshu Verma, Balaji Ganesan, Purnima Bindal, Vikas Kumar, and Vasudha Bhatnagar. 2024. Human Centered AI for Indian Legal Text Analytics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10944 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  66. [70]

    Morgan A Gray, Jaromir Savelka, Wesley M Oliver, and Kevin D Ashley. 2024. Empirical legal analysis simplified: reducing complexity through automatic identification and evaluation of legally relevant factors. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 382, 2270 (2024), 20230155

    2024

  67. [71]

    Paul W Grimm. 2017. Challenges facing judges regarding expert evidence in criminal cases. Fordham L. Rev. 86 (2017), 1601

    2017

  68. [72]

    Shreya Goswami, Naveen Saini, and Saurabh Shukla. 2025. Incorporating Domain Knowledge in Multi-objective Optimization Framework for Automating Indian Legal Case Summarization. In International Conference on Pattern Recognition. Springer, 265–280

    2025

  69. [73]

    S Georgette Graham, Hamidreza Soltani, and Olufemi Isiaq. 2023. Natural language processing for legal document review: categorising deontic modalities in contracts. Artificial Intelligence and Law (2023), 1–22

    2023

  70. [74]

    Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart and Leslie Green. 2012. The concept of law . oxford university press

    2012

  71. [75]

    Congqing He, Tien-Ping Tan, Sheng Xue, and Yanyu Tan. 2025. Simulating judicial trial logic: Dual residual cross- attention learning for predicting legal judgment in long documents. Expert Systems with Applications 261 (2025), 125462

    2025

  72. [76]

    Thomas R Gruber. 1991. The role of common ontology in achieving sharable, reusable knowledge bases. Kr 91 (1991), 601–602

    1991

  73. [77]

    Neel Guha, Julian Nyarko, Daniel Ho, Christopher Ré, Adam Chilton, Alex Chohlas-Wood, Austin Peters, Brandon Waldon, Daniel Rockmore, Diego Zambrano, et al. 2024. Legalbench: A collaboratively built benchmark for measuring legal reasoning in large language models. Advances in ...

    2024

  74. [78]

    Felix Hill, Kyunghyun Cho, Anna Korhonen, and Yoshua Bengio. 2016. Learning to understand phrases by embedding the dictionary. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 4 (2016), 17–30

    2016

  75. [79]

    David Hitchcock. 2005. Good reasoning on the Toulmin model. Argumentation 19 (2005), 373–391

    2005

  76. [80]

    Amanda Head and Sonya Willis. 2024. Assessing law students in a GenAI world to create knowledgeable future lawyers. International Journal of the Legal Profession 31, 3 (2024), 293–310

    2024

  77. [81]

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Anya Chen, and Spencer Ball. 2021. CUAD: an expert-annotated NLP dataset for legal contract review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.06268 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  78. [82]

    Yin Hua and Wu Zihao. 2024. Mixture of Expert Large Language Model for Legal Case Element Recognition. Journal of Frontiers of Computer Science and Technology 18, 12 (2024), 3260–3271

    2024

  79. [83]

    Quzhe Huang, Mingxu Tao, Chen Zhang, Zhenwei An, Cong Jiang, Zhibin Chen, Zirui Wu, and Yansong Feng. 2023. Lawyer llama technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15062 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  80. [84]

    Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. 1917. Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. The Yale Law Journal 26, 8 (1917), 710–770

    1917

  81. [85]

    John Hokkanen and Marc Lauritsen. 2002. Knowledge tools for legal knowledge tool makers. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10, 4 (2002), 295–302

    2002

  82. [86]

    Wonseok Hwang, Dongjun Lee, Kyoungyeon Cho, Hanuhl Lee, and Minjoon Seo. 2022. A multi-task benchmark for korean legal language understanding and judgement prediction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111. Publication...

    2022

  83. [87]

    Ali Shariq Imran, Henrik Hodnefjeld, Zenun Kastrati, Noureen Fatima, Sher Muhammad Daudpota, and Mudasir Ah- mad Wani. 2023. Classifying European court of human rights cases using transformer-based techniques. IEEE Access 11 (2023), 55664–55676

    2023

  84. [88]

    Yunyun Huang, Xiaoyu Shen, Chuanyi Li, Jidong Ge, and Bin Luo. 2021. Dependency learning for legal judgment prediction with a unified text-to-text transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.06370 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  85. [89]

    John Hudzina, Kanika Madan, Dhivya Chinnappa, Jinane Harmouche, Hiroko Bretz, Andrew Vold, and Frank Schilder

  86. [90]

    Mi-Young Kim, Juliano Rabelo, Kingsley Okeke, and Randy Goebel. 2022. Legal information retrieval and entailment based on bm25, transformer and semantic thesaurus methods. The Review of Socionetwork Strategies 16, 1 (2022), 157–174

    2022

  87. [91]

    Ryan Kiros, Yukun Zhu, Russ R Salakhutdinov, Richard Zemel, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler

  88. [92]

    Wolters Kluwer. 2021. The 2021 Wolters Kluwer Future Ready Lawyer. Moving Beyond the Pandemic. Survey Report

    2021

  89. [93]

    Deepali Jain, Malaya Dutta Borah, and Anupam Biswas. 2024. Domain knowledge-enriched summarization of legal judgment documents via grey wolf optimization. In Advances in Computers. Vol. 135. Elsevier, 233–258

    2024

  90. [94]

    Deepali Jain, Malaya Dutta Borah, and Anupam Biswas. 2024. Summarization of Lengthy Legal Documents via Abstractive Dataset Building: An Extract-then-Assign Approach. Expert Systems with Applications 237 (2024), 121571

    2024

  91. [95]

    Sarah Kreps, R Miles McCain, and Miles Brundage. 2022. All the news that’s fit to fabricate: AI-generated text as a tool of media misinformation. Journal of experimental political science 9, 1 (2022), 104–117

    2022

  92. [97]

    Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2019. Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11942 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  93. [98]

    Marc Lauritsen. 1992. Technology report: Building legal practice systems with today’s commercial authoring tools. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (1992), 87–102

    1992

  94. [99]

    Charles W Kneupper. 1978. Teaching argument: An introduction to the Toulmin model. College Composition & Communication 29, 3 (1978), 237–241

    1978

  95. [100]

    T. V. Kolb. 2016. Technology Competence: The New Ethical Mandate for North Dakota Lawyers and the Practice of Law. North Dakota Law Review 92 (2016), 91–113

    2016

  96. [101]

    Edward H Levi. 2013. An introduction to legal reasoning . University of Chicago Press

    2013

  97. [102]

    Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.134...

    2019 arXiv

  98. [103]

    Haitao Li, You Chen, Zhekai Ge, Qingyao Ai, Yiqun Liu, Quan Zhou, and Shuai Huo. 2024. Towards an In-Depth Comprehension of Case Relevance for Better Legal Retrieval. InJSAI International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 212–227

    2024

  99. [104]

    Shangyuan Li, Shiman Zhao, Zhuoran Zhang, Zihao Fang, Wei Chen, and Tengjiao Wang. 2025. Basis is also explanation: Interpretable Legal Judgment Reasoning prompted by multi-source knowledge. Information Processing & Management 62, 3 (2025), 103996

    2025

  100. [105]

    Marc Lauritsen. 1995. Technology report: Work product retrieval systems in today’s law offices. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3 (1995), 287–304

    1995

  101. [106]

    Valentina Leone, Luigi Di Caro, and Serena Villata. 2020. Taking stock of legal ontologies: a feature-based comparative analysis. Artificial Intelligence and Law 28, 2 (2020), 207–235

    2020

  102. [107]

    Dugang Liu, Weihao Du, Lei Li, Weike Pan, and Zhong Ming. 2022. Augmenting legal judgment prediction with contrastive case relations. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics . 2658–2667

    2022

  103. [108]

    Huanghai Liu, Quzhe Huang, Qingjing Chen, Yiran Hu, Jiayu Ma, Yun Liu, Weixing Shen, and Yansong Feng. 2025. Jurex-4e: Juridical expert-annotated four-element knowledge base for legal reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17166 (2025)

    2025

  104. [109]

    Shuaiqi Liu, Jiannong Cao, Yicong Li, Ruosong Yang, and Zhiyuan Wen. 2024. Low-resource court judgment summarization for common law systems. Information Processing & Management 61, 5 (2024), 103796

    2024

  105. [110]

    Lajanugen Logeswaran, Honglak Lee, and Dragomir Radev. 2018. Sentence ordering and coherence modeling using recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 32

    2018

  106. [111]

    Davide Liga and Livio Robaldo. 2023. Fine-tuning GPT-3 for legal rule classification. Computer Law & Security Review 51 (2023), 105864

    2023

  107. [112]

    Marco Lippi and Paolo Torroni. 2016. Argumentation mining: State of the art and emerging trends. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT) 16, 2 (2016), 1–25

    2016

  108. [113]

    Luyao Ma, Yating Zhang, Tianyi Wang, Xiaozhong Liu, Wei Ye, Changlong Sun, and Shikun Zhang. 2021. Legal judgment prediction with multi-stage case representation learning in the real court setting. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and D...

    2021

  109. [114]

    Neil MacCormick. 1994. Legal reasoning and legal theory . Clarendon Press

    1994

  110. [115]

    Karolina Mania. 2023. Legal technology: assessment of the legal tech industry’s potential. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 14, 2 (2023), 595–619

    2023

  111. [116]

    Qiang Mao, Adam Dabrowski, Fusheng Wei, Eric Olson, Robert Neary, Jingchao Yang, Han Qin, and Nathaniel Huber-Fliflet. 2024. Comparative Analysis of LLM-Generated Event Timeline Summarization for Legal Investigations. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData)...

    2024

  112. [117]

    Yougang Lyu, Zihan Wang, Zhaochun Ren, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Xiaozhong Liu, Yujun Li, Hongsong Li, and Hongye Song. 2022. Improving legal judgment prediction through reinforced criminal element extraction.Information Processing & Management 59, 1 (2022), 102780. ACM Comput...

    2022

  113. [118]

    Luyao Ma, Wei Ye, and Shikun Zhang. 2020. Judgment Prediction Based on Case Life Cycle. In The 1st International Workshop on Legal Intelligence Held in conjunction with SIGIR

    2020

  114. [119]

    Jorge Martinez-Gil. 2023. A survey on legal question–answering systems. Computer Science Review 48 (2023), 100552

    2023

  115. [120]

    Masha Medvedeva, Martijn Wieling, and Michel Vols. 2023. Rethinking the field of automatic prediction of court decisions. Artificial Intelligence and Law 31, 1 (2023), 195–212

    2023

  116. [121]

    Eliza Mik. 2022. Much ado about artificial intelligence or: the automation of contract formation. International Journal of Law and Information Technology 30, 4 (2022), 484–506

    2022

  117. [122]

    Tomas Mikolov. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781 3781 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  118. [123]

    Mohammed Maree, Rabee Al-Qasem, and Banan Tantour. 2024. Transforming legal text interactions: leveraging natural language processing and large language models for legal support in Palestinian cooperatives. International Journal of Information Technology 16, 1 (2024), 551–558

    2024

  119. [124]

    Lauren Martin, Nick Whitehouse, Stephanie Yiu, Lizzie Catterson, and Rivindu Perera. 2024. Better call gpt, comparing large language models against lawyers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16212 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  120. [125]

    Gianluca Moro, Nicola Piscaglia, Luca Ragazzi, and Paolo Italiani. 2024. Multi-language transfer learning for low- resource legal case summarization. Artificial Intelligence and Law 32, 4 (2024), 1111–1139

    2024

  121. [126]

    Laura Nader and Harry F Todd. 1978. The disputing process–Law in ten societies . Columbia University Press

    1978

  122. [127]

    Chau Nguyen and Le-Minh Nguyen. 2024. Employing label models on ChatGPT answers improves legal text entailment performance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17897 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  123. [128]

    Chau Nguyen, Phuong Nguyen, and Le-Minh Nguyen. 2025. Retrieve–Revise–Refine: A novel framework for retrieval of concise entailing legal article set. Information Processing & Management 62, 1 (2025), 103949

    2025

  124. [129]

    Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems 26 (2013)

    2013

  125. [130]

    Gian Carlo Milanese, Georgios Peikos, Gabriella Pasi, and Marco Viviani. 2025. Fact-Driven Health Information Retrieval: Integrating LLMs and Knowledge Graphs to Combat Misinformation. InEuropean Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 192–200

    2025

  126. [131]

    Ha-Thanh Nguyen, Minh-Phuong Nguyen, Thi-Hai-Yen Vuong, Minh-Quan Bui, Minh-Chau Nguyen, Tran-Binh Dang, Vu Tran, Le-Minh Nguyen, and Ken Satoh. 2022. Transformer-based approaches for legal text processing: Jnlp team-coliee 2021. The Review of Socionetwork Strategies 16, 1 (20...

    2022

  127. [132]

    Ha-Thanh Nguyen, Manh-Kien Phi, Xuan-Bach Ngo, Vu Tran, Le-Minh Nguyen, and Minh-Phuong Tu. 2024. Attentive deep neural networks for legal document retrieval. Artificial Intelligence and Law 32, 1 (2024), 57–86

    2024

  128. [133]

    Tan-Minh Nguyen, Hai-Long Nguyen, Dieu-Quynh Nguyen, Hoang-Trung Nguyen, Thi-Hai-Yen Vuong, and Ha- Thanh Nguyen. 2024. NOWJ@ COLIEE 2024: leveraging advanced deep learning techniques for efficient and effective legal information processing. In JSAI International Symposium on ...

    2024

  129. [134]

    Truong-Son Nguyen, Le-Minh Nguyen, Satoshi Tojo, Ken Satoh, and Akira Shimazu. 2018. Recurrent neural network- based models for recognizing requisite and effectuation parts in legal texts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 26 (2018), 169–199

    2018

  130. [135]

    Chau Nguyen, Thanh Tran, Khang Le, Hien Nguyen, Truong Do, Trang Pham, Son T Luu, Trung Vo, and Le-Minh Nguyen. 2024. Pushing the boundaries of legal information processing with integration of large language models. In JSAI International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence . ...

    2024

  131. [136]

    Duy-Hung Nguyen, Bao-Sinh Nguyen, Nguyen Viet Dung Nghiem, Dung Tien Le, Mim Amina Khatun, Minh-Tien Nguyen, and Hung Le. 2021. Robust deep reinforcement learning for extractive legal summarization. In Neural Information Processing: 28th International Conference, ICONIP 2021, ...

    2021

  132. [137]

    Fife Ogunde. 2024. Navigating the legal landscape: large language models and the hesitancy of legal professionals. International Journal of the Legal Profession 31, 3 (2024), 311–322

    2024

  133. [138]

    Dyane L O’Leary. 2020. " Smart" Lawyering: Integrating Technology Competence into the Legal Practice Curriculum. UNHL Rev. 19 (2020), 197

    2020

  134. [139]

    Takaaki Onaga, Masaki Fujita, and Yoshinobu Kano. 2024. Contribution Analysis of Large Language Models and Data Augmentations for Person Names in Solving Legal Bar Examination at COLIEE 2023. The Review of Socionetwork Strategies 18, 1 (2024), 123–143

    2024

  135. [140]

    Anja Oskamp and Marc Lauritsen. 2002. AI in law practice? So far, not much. AI & L. 10 (2002), 227

    2002

  136. [141]

    Shubham Kumar Nigam, Aniket Deroy, Subhankar Maity, and Arnab Bhattacharya. 2024. Rethinking legal judgement prediction in a realistic scenario in the era of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10542 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  137. [142]

    Joel Niklaus, Ilias Chalkidis, and Matthias Stürmer. 2021. Swiss-judgment-prediction: A multilingual legal judgment prediction benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.00806 (2021). ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111. Publication date: June 2025. When Large Language Mo...

    2021 arXiv

  138. [143]

    Nicolás Parra-Herrera. 2024. Being a Competent Lawyer in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Stu- dent Fellow Project. https://clp.law.harvard.edu/knowledge-hub/insights/being-a-competent-lawyer-in-the-age-of- generative-artificial-intelligence/. Harvard Law Schoo...

    2024

  139. [144]

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) . 1532–1543

    2014

  140. [145]

    Wim Peters, Maria-Teresa Sagri, and Daniela Tiscornia. 2007. The structuring of legal knowledge in LOIS. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (2007), 117–135

    2007

  141. [146]

    Thiago Dal Pont, Federico Galli, Andrea Loreggia, Giuseppe Pisano, Riccardo Rovatti, and Giovanni Sartor. 2023. Legal Summarisation through LLMs: The PRODIGIT Project. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04416 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  142. [147]

    Sumit Pai, Sounak Lahiri, Ujjwal Kumar, Krishanu Baksi, Elijah Soba, Michael Suesserman, Nirmala Pudota, Jon Foster, Edward Bowen, and Sanmitra Bhattacharya. 2023. Exploration of open large language models for ediscovery. In Proceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing...

    2023

  143. [148]

    Raquel Mochales Palau and Marie-Francine Moens. 2009. Argumentation mining: the detection, classification and structure of arguments in text. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law . 98–107

    2009

  144. [149]

    Weicong Qin and Zhongxiang Sun. 2024. Exploring the Nexus of Large Language Models and Legal Systems: A Short Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00990 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  145. [150]

    Juliano Rabelo, Mi-Young Kim, and Randy Goebel. 2019. Combining similarity and transformer methods for case law entailment. In Proceedings of the seventeenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law . 290–296

    2019

  146. [151]

    Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. (2018)

    2018

  147. [152]

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog 1, 8 (2019), 9

    2019

  148. [153]

    Nishchal Prasad, Mohand Boughanem, and Taoufiq Dkaki. 2023. IRIT_IRIS_C at SemEval-2023 Task 6: A Multi-level Encoder-based Architecture for Judgement Prediction of Legal Cases and their Explanation. In Proceedings of the 17th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (Sem...

    2023

  149. [154]

    Nishchal Prasad, Mohand Boughanem, and Taoufiq Dkaki. 2024. Exploring Large Language Models and Hierarchical Frameworks for Classification of Large Unstructured Legal Documents. In European Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 221–237

    2024

  150. [155]

    Adam Roegiest, Alexander K Hudek, and Anne McNulty. 2018. A dataset and an examination of identifying passages for due diligence. In The 41st international ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval . 465–474

    2018

  151. [156]

    TYS Santosh, Oana Ichim, and Matthias Grabmair. 2023. Zero-shot transfer of article-aware legal outcome classification for european court of human rights cases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00609 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  152. [157]

    Shanghai Lawyers Association. 2025. Special Committees. https://www.lawyers.org.cn/aboutus/special-committees. Last visited June 11, 2025

    2025

  153. [159]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of machine learning research 21, 140 (2020), 1–67

    2020

  154. [161]

    Yunqiu Shao, Yueyue Wu, Yiqun Liu, Jiaxin Mao, and Shaoping Ma. 2023. Understanding relevance judgments in legal case retrieval. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 41, 3 (2023), 1–32

    2023

  155. [162]

    Zhengyan Shi, Giuseppe Castellucci, Simone Filice, Saar Kuzi, Elad Kravi, Eugene Agichtein, Oleg Rokhlenko, and Shervin Malmasi. 2025. Ambiguity detection and uncertainty calibration for question answering with large language models. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Trust...

    2025

  156. [163]

    Ruihao Shui, Yixin Cao, Xiang Wang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2023. A comprehensive evaluation of large language models on legal judgment prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11761 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  157. [164]

    Roger W Shuy. 2002. Linguistic battles in trademark disputes. (2002)

    2002

  158. [166]

    Yunqiu Shao, Jiaxin Mao, Yiqun Liu, Weizhi Ma, Ken Satoh, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2020. BERT-PLI: Modeling paragraph-level interactions for legal case retrieval.. In IJCAI. 3501–3507

    2020

  159. [167]

    Bogdana Stjepanovic. 2024. Leveraging artificial intelligence in ediscovery: enhancing efficiency, accuracy, and ethical considerations. Regional L. Rev. (2024), 179

    2024

  160. [168]

    Benjamin Strickson and Beatriz De La Iglesia. 2020. Legal judgement prediction for UK courts. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information Science and Systems . 204–209

    2020

  161. [169]

    Weihang Su, Qingyao Ai, Yueyue Wu, Yixiao Ma, Haitao Li, and Yiqun Liu. 2023. Caseformer: Pre-training for legal case retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00333 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  162. [170]

    Yu Sun, Shuohuan Wang, Shikun Feng, Siyu Ding, Chao Pang, Junyuan Shang, Jiaxiang Liu, Xuyi Chen, Yanbin Zhao, Yuxiang Lu, et al. 2021. Ernie 3.0: Large-scale knowledge enhanced pre-training for language understanding and generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02137 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  163. [171]

    Marco Siino, Mariana Falco, Daniele Croce, and Paolo Rosso. 2025. Exploring LLMs Applications in Law: A Literature Review on Current Legal NLP Approaches. IEEE Access (2025)

    2025

  164. [172]

    Răzvan-Alexandru Smădu, Ion-Robert Dinică, Andrei-Marius Avram, Dumitru-Clementin Cercel, Florin Pop, and Mihaela-Claudia Cercel. 2022. Legal named entity recognition with multi-task domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop 2022 . 305–321

    2022

  165. [173]

    Yanran Tang, Ruihong Qiu, Yilun Liu, Xue Li, and Zi Huang. 2024. CaseGNN: Graph Neural Networks for Legal Case Retrieval with Text-Attributed Graphs. In European Conference on Information Retrieval . Springer, 80–95

    2024

  166. [174]

    Nina Toren. 1975. Deprofessionalization and its sources: A preliminary analysis. Sociology of work and occupations 2, 4 (1975), 323–337

    1975

  167. [175]

    Stephen E Toulmin. 2003. The uses of argument . Cambridge university press

    2003

  168. [176]

    Vu Tran, Minh Le Nguyen, and Ken Satoh. 2019. Building legal case retrieval systems with lexical matching and summarization using a pre-trained phrase scoring model. In Proceedings of the seventeenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law . 275–282

    2019

  169. [177]

    Zhongxiang Sun. 2023. A short survey of viewing large language models in legal aspect.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.09136 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  170. [178]

    Richard Susskind. 1996. The Future of Law, and Transforming the Law

    1996

  171. [179]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  172. [180]

    Shaurya Vats, Atharva Zope, Somsubhra De, Anurag Sharma, Upal Bhattacharya, Shubham Kumar Nigam, Shouvik Guha, Koustav Rudra, and Kripabandhu Ghosh. 2023. Llms–the good, the bad or the indispensable?: A use case on legal statute prediction and legal judgment prediction on indi...

    2023

  173. [181]

    Bart Verheij. 2017. Proof with and without probabilities: Correct evidential reasoning with presumptive arguments, coherent hypotheses and degrees of uncertainty. Artificial Intelligence and Law 25 (2017), 127–154

    2017

  174. [182]

    Pepijn RS Visser and Trevor JM Bench-Capon. 1998. A comparison of four ontologies for the design of legal knowledge systems. Artificial Intelligence and law 6, 1 (1998), 27–57

    1998

  175. [183]

    Santosh Tyss, Marcel Perez San Blas, Phillip Kemper, and Matthias Grabmair. 2023. Leveraging task dependency and contrastive learning for case outcome classification on european court of human rights cases. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the A...

    2023

  176. [184]

    JAGM Van Dijk. 2017. Digital divide: Impact of access. The international encyclopedia of media effects 1 (2017), 1–11

    2017

  177. [185]

    Thi-Hai-Yen Vuong, Hai-Long Nguyen, Tan-Minh Nguyen, Hoang-Trung Nguyen, Thai-Binh Nguyen, and Ha-Thanh Nguyen. 2024. NOWJ at COLIEE 2023: Multi-task and Ensemble Approaches in Legal Information Processing. The Review of Socionetwork Strategies 18, 1 (2024), 145–165

    2024

  178. [186]

    Douglas Walton. 2003. Is there a burden of questioning? Artificial Intelligence and Law 11, 1 (2003), 1–43. ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111. Publication date: June 2025. When Large Language Models Meet Law: Dual-Lens Taxonomy, Technical Advances, and Ethical Gov...

    2003

  179. [187]

    Douglas Walton. 2010. Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2010), 217–246

    2010

  180. [188]

    Douglas Walton. 2014. Baseballs and arguments from fairness. Artificial intelligence and law 22 (2014), 423–449

    2014

  181. [189]

    Charlotte S Vlek, Henry Prakken, Silja Renooij, and Bart Verheij. 2014. Building Bayesian networks for legal evidence with narratives: a case study evaluation. Artificial intelligence and law 22 (2014), 375–421

    2014

  182. [190]

    Charlotte S Vlek, Henry Prakken, Silja Renooij, and Bart Verheij. 2016. A method for explaining Bayesian networks for legal evidence with scenarios. Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (2016), 285–324

    2016

  183. [191]

    Sabine Wehnert, Shipra Dureja, Libin Kutty, Viju Sudhi, and Ernesto William De Luca. 2022. Applying BERT embeddings to predict legal textual entailment. The Review of Socionetwork Strategies 16, 1 (2022), 197–219

    2022

  184. [192]

    Bin Wei, Yaoyao Yu, Leilei Gan, and Fei Wu. 2025. An LLMs-based neuro-symbolic legal judgment prediction framework for civil cases. Artificial Intelligence and Law (2025), 1–35

    2025

  185. [193]

    Laura Weidinger, John Mellor, Maribeth Rauh, Conor Griffin, Jonathan Uesato, Po-Sen Huang, Myra Cheng, Mia Glaese, Borja Balle, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, et al. 2021. Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04359 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  186. [194]

    Johannes Welbl, Amelia Glaese, Jonathan Uesato, Sumanth Dathathri, John Mellor, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Kirsty Anderson, Pushmeet Kohli, Ben Coppin, and Po-Sen Huang. 2021. Challenges in detoxifying language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07445 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  187. [195]

    Xuran Wang, Xinguang Zhang, Vanessa Hoo, Zhouhang Shao, and Xuguang Zhang. 2024. LegalReasoner: A Multi- Stage Framework for Legal Judgment Prediction via Large Language Models and Knowledge Integration. IEEE Access (2024)

    2024

  188. [196]

    Zheng Wang, Yuanzhi Ding, Caiyuan Wu, Yuzhen Guo, and Wei Zhou. 2024. Causality-inspired legal provision selection with large language model-based explanation. Artificial Intelligence and Law (2024), 1–25

    2024

  189. [197]

    Xingyu Wu, Sheng-hao Wu, Jibin Wu, Liang Feng, and Kay Chen Tan. 2025. Evolutionary computation in the era of large language model: Survey and roadmap. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 29, 2 (2025), 534–554

    2025

  190. [198]

    Xingyu Wu, Kui Yu, Jibin Wu, and Kay Chen Tan. 2025. LLM Cannot Discover Causality, and Should Be Restricted to Non-Decisional Support in Causal Discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00844 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  191. [199]

    Yangbin Xia and Xudong Luo. 2024. Legal Judgment Prediction with LLM and Graph Contrastive Learning Networks. In Proceedings of the 2024 8th International Conference on Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence . 424–432

    2024

  192. [200]

    Chaojun Xiao, Xueyu Hu, Zhiyuan Liu, Cunchao Tu, and Maosong Sun. 2021. Lawformer: A pre-trained language model for chinese legal long documents. AI Open 2 (2021), 79–84

    2021

  193. [201]

    Nirmalie Wiratunga, Ramitha Abeyratne, Lasal Jayawardena, Kyle Martin, Stewart Massie, Ikechukwu Nkisi-Orji, Ruvan Weerasinghe, Anne Liret, and Bruno Fleisch. 2024. CBR-RAG: case-based reasoning for retrieval augmented generation in LLMs for legal question answering. In Intern...

    2024

  194. [202]

    Jerzy Wróblewski. 1974. Legal syllogism and rationality of judicial decision. Rechtstheorie 5 (1974), 33

    1974

  195. [204]

    Masaharu Yoshioka, Youta Suzuki, and Yasuhiro Aoki. 2022. Hukb at the coliee 2022 statute law task. In JSAI International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence . Springer, 109–124

    2022

  196. [205]

    Shengbin Yue, Wei Chen, Siyuan Wang, Bingxuan Li, Chenchen Shen, Shujun Liu, Yuxuan Zhou, Yao Xiao, Song Yun, Xuanjing Huang, et al. 2023. Disc-lawllm: Fine-tuning large language models for intelligent legal services. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11325 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  197. [206]

    Tomasz Zalewski. 2021. Basic Principles for the Effective Use of Legal Tech Tools. In Legal Tech. Nomos Verlagsge- sellschaft mbH & Co. KG, 315–332

    2021

  198. [207]

    Zhuopeng Xu, Xia Li, Yinlin Li, Zihan Wang, Yujie Fanxu, and Xiaoyan Lai. 2020. Multi-task legal judgement prediction combining a subtask of the seriousness of charges. In Chinese Computational Linguistics: 19th China National Conference, CCL 2020, Hainan, China, October 30–No...

    2020

  199. [208]

    Shuxin Yang, Suxin Tong, Guixiang Zhu, Jie Cao, Youquan Wang, Zhengfa Xue, Hongliang Sun, and Yu Wen. 2022. MVE-FLK: A multi-task legal judgment prediction via multi-view encoder fusing legal keywords. Knowledge-Based Systems 239 (2022), 107960

    2022

  200. [209]

    Jian Zeng, Kaixin Chen, Ruiqi Wang, Yilong Li, Mingming Fan, Kaishun Wu, Xiaoke Qi, and Lu Wang. 2025. Contract- Mind: Trust-calibration interaction design for AI contract review tools. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 196 (2025), 103411

    2025

  201. [210]

    Han Zhang, Zhicheng Dou, Yutao Zhu, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. Contrastive learning for legal judgment prediction. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 41, 4 (2023), 1–25. ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111. Publication date: June 2025. 111:34 Shao et al

    2023

  202. [211]

    Yue Zhang, Zhiliang Tian, Shicheng Zhou, Haiyang Wang, Wenqing Hou, Yuying Liu, Xuechen Zhao, Minlie Huang, Ye Wang, and Bin Zhou. 2025. RLJP: Legal Judgment Prediction via First-Order Logic Rule-enhanced with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21281 (2025)

    2025

  203. [212]

    Zhengyan Zhang, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, Xin Jiang, Maosong Sun, and Qun Liu. 2019. ERNIE: Enhanced language representation with informative entities. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07129 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  204. [213]

    Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Hannah Rashkin, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, Franziska Roesner, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Defending against neural fake news. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  205. [214]

    Guohang Zeng, George Tian, Guangquan Zhang, and Jie Lu. 2025. RoSiLC-RS: A Robust Similar Legal Case Recom- mender System empowered by large language model and step-back prompting. Neurocomputing (2025), 130660

    2025

  206. [215]

    Zhi Zhou, Jiang-Xin Shi, Peng-Xiao Song, Xiao-Wen Yang, Yi-Xuan Jin, Lan-Zhe Guo, and Yu-Feng Li. 2024. Lawgpt: A chinese legal knowledge-enhanced large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04614 (2024). Received 20 February 2025; revised 12 March 2025; accepted 5 June 20...

    2024 arXiv

  207. [219]

    Lucia Zheng, Neel Guha, Brandon R Anderson, Peter Henderson, and Daniel E Ho. 2021. When does pretraining help? assessing self-supervised learning for law and the casehold dataset of 53,000+ legal holdings. In Proceedings of the eighteenth international conference on artificia...

    2021

  208. [220]

    Haoxi Zhong, Chaojun Xiao, Cunchao Tu, Tianyang Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2020. How does NLP benefit legal system: A summary of legal artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.12158 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  209. [2015]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 28 (2015)

    Skip-thought vectors. Advances in neural information processing systems 28 (2015)

    2015

  210. [2020]

    In JSAI International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence

    Information extraction/entailment of common law and civil code. In JSAI International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 254–268

  211. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    Syllogistic reasoning for legal judgment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 13997–14009

    2023

  212. [2024]

    In 2024 International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Communication Systems (ICKECS) , Vol

    AI in Mergers and Acquisitions: Analyzing the Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence in Due Diligence. In 2024 International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Communication Systems (ICKECS) , Vol. 1. IEEE, 1–5

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.