Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

NitiBench: A Comprehensive Study of LLM Framework Capabilities for Thai Legal Question Answering

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 2502.10868 v4 pith:XGK2R4VS submitted 2025-02-15 cs.CL

NitiBench: A Comprehensive Study of LLM Framework Capabilities for Thai Legal Question Answering

classification cs.CL
keywords legalthaillmslong-contextretrievalansweringchunkingcurrent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The application of large language models (LLMs) in the legal domain holds significant potential for information retrieval and question answering, yet Thai legal QA systems face challenges due to a lack of standardized evaluation benchmarks and the complexity of Thai legal structures. This paper introduces NitiBench, a benchmark comprising two datasets: the NitiBench-CCL, covering general Thai financial law, and the NitiBench-Tax, which includes real-world tax law cases requiring advanced legal reasoning. We evaluate retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and long-context LLM-based approaches to address three key research questions: the impact of domain-specific components like section-based chunking and cross-referencing, the comparative performance of different retrievers and LLMs, and the viability of long-context LLMs as an alternative to RAG. Our results show that section-based chunking significantly improves retrieval and end-to-end performance, current retrievers struggle with complex queries, and long-context LLMs still underperform RAG-based systems in Thai legal QA. To support fair evaluation, we propose tailored multi-label retrieval metrics and the use of an LLM-as-judge for coverage and contradiction detection method. These findings highlight the limitations of current Thai legal NLP solutions and provide a foundation for future research in the field. We also open-sourced our codes and dataset to available publicly.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. JBE-QA: Japanese Bar Exam QA Dataset for Assessing Legal Domain Knowledge

    cs.CL 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0

    A new 3,464-item Japanese bar exam QA benchmark (2015–2024, three legal subjects) shows proprietary reasoning LLMs score highest and Constitutional questions are easier than Civil or Penal Code questions.