ProvBench: A Benchmark of Legal Provision Recommendation for Contract Auto-Reviewing (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Xiuxuan Shen, Zhongyuan Jiang, Junsan Zhang, Junxiao Han, Yao Wan, Chengjie Guo, Bingcheng Liu, Jie Wu, Renxiang Li, Philip S. Yu
| Challenge: | Contract review is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and costly . a benchmark is proposed to detect potential legal conflicts . |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark for legal provision recommendation and conflict detection for contract auto-reviewing which aims to recommend the legal provisions related to contract clauses and detect possible legal conflicts. |
| Outcome: | The proposed task recommends legal provisions related to contract clauses and detects legal conflicts. |
Similar Papers
Annotation and Classification of Relevant Clauses in Terms-and-Conditions Contracts (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Using Large Language Models (LLMs) as foundational models, we propose a new annotation scheme to classify different types of clauses in Terms-and-Conditions contracts. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a new annotation scheme to classify clauses in Terms-and-Conditions contracts to support legal experts in identifying and assessing problematic issues. |
| Outcome: | The proposed annotation scheme achieves accuracies ranging from .79 to .95 on validation tasks. |
LexGLUE: A Benchmark Dataset for Legal Language Understanding in English (2022.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Ilias Chalkidis, Abhik Jana, Dirk Hartung, Michael Bommarito, Ion Androutsopoulos, Daniel Katz, Nikolaos Aletras
| Challenge: | Laws and their interpretations, legal arguments and agreements are typically expressed in writing. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate model performance across legal NLU tasks . they also evaluate several generic and legal-oriented models . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model performs better across multiple tasks than previous models. |
JurisBench: A Deep Benchmark for Assessing Large Language Models in Professional Legal Practice (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Ziang Chen, Guannan Li, Fanlin Ji, Yipeng Kang, Jiaqi Li, Muhan Zhang, Yangtao Zhang, Li Tianjiao, Jiannan Wang, Xin Guo, Song-Chun Zhu, Bin Ling
| Challenge: | Existing legal benchmarks evaluate isolated tasks or exam-style questions, failing to capture the procedural interdependencies and adjudicative rigor inherent in professional practice. |
| Approach: | They propose a vertical, depth-oriented, domain-specific benchmark to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) in Chinese civil litigation. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmarks show that large language models exhibit an "illusion of competence" the results highlight a critical gap between fluent linguistic output and judicial reliability . |
ACORD: An Expert-Annotated Retrieval Dataset for Legal Contract Drafting (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Steven H Wang, Maksim Zubkov, Kexin Fan, Sarah Harrell, Yuyang Sun, Wei Chen, Andreas Plesner, Roger Wattenhofer
| Challenge: | Contract clause retrieval is critical to contract drafting because of its high quality and complexity. |
| Approach: | They propose the first expert-annotated benchmark specifically designed for contract clause retrieval . ACORD focuses on complex contract clauses such as Limitation of Liability, Indemnification, Change of Control . |
| Outcome: | The atticus clause retrieval dataset shows promising results but needs improvement . the benchmark can be used as an IR benchmark for the NLP community . |
OpenExempt: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Legal Reasoning and a Framework for Creating Custom Benchmarks on Demand (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Reasoning benchmarks are expensive to build and ill suited for isolating specific failure modes. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework and benchmark for diagnostic evaluation of legal reasoning that uses symbolic representations of U.S. Bankruptcy Code statutes to generate large space of reasoning tasks and their machine-computable solutions on demand. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework and benchmark provides diagnostic insights into the competencies and failure modes of language models. |
PRBench: Large-Scale Expert Rubrics for Evaluating High-Stakes Professional Reasoning (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Afra Feyza Akyürek, Advait Gosai, Chen Bo Calvin Zhang, Vipul Gupta, Jaehwan Jeong, Anisha Gunjal, Tahseen Rabbani, Maria Mazzone, David Randolph IV, Mohammad Mahmoudi Meymand, Gurshaan Chattha, Paula Rodriguez, Diego A. Mares Buendia, Pavit Singh, Michael Liu, Subodh Chawla, Peter Cline, Lucy Ogaz, Ernesto Gabriel Hernández Montoya, Zihao Wang, Pavi Bhatter, Marcos Ayestaran, Bing Liu, Yunzhong He
| Challenge: | Frontier models often lack a view of performance on open-ended, economically consequential tasks in high-stakes professional domains where practical returns matter most. |
| Approach: | They introduce a professional reasoning benchmark that recruits 182 qualified professionals to contribute questions inspired by their workflows. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms other models in 114 countries and 47 US jurisdictions on hard subsets. |
PLAWBENCH: A Rubric-Based Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Real-World Legal Practice (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Yuzhen Shi, Huanghai Liu, Yiran HU, Song Gaojie, Xu Xinran, Yubo Ma, Tianyi Tang, Li Zhang, Qingjing Chen, Feng Di, Wenbo Lv, Weiheng Wu, Kexin Yang, Sen Yang, Wei Wang, Rongyao Shi, Qiu Yuanyang, Yuemeng Qi, Zhang Jingwen, Sui Xiaoyu, Yifan Chen, Zhang Yi, An Yang, Bowen Yu, Dayiheng Liu, Junyang Lin, Weixing Shen, Bing Zhao, Charles L. A. Clarke, HU Wei
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) are coarse, single-dimensional metrics and do not explicitly assess fine-grained legal reasoning. |
| Approach: | They propose a Practical Law Benchmark to evaluate large language models in real-world legal practice scenarios. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model is based on 850 questions and 13 scenarios with expert-designed evaluation rubrics. |
Pub-LawBench: Public-Oriented Benchmarking for LegalAI (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation frameworks focus on legal professionals, not legal professionals. |
| Approach: | They propose a public-oriented LegalAI benchmark grounded in legal functionalism and genre analysis to address this gap. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model evaluates 17 large language models on Pub-LawBench using simple prompts and Chain-of-Thought under a vanilla inference setting. |
What to Read in a Contract? Party-Specific Summarization of Legal Obligations, Entitlements, and Prohibitions (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing systems that generate section-wise summaries of contracts can be tedious due to length and complexity of legalese. |
| Approach: | They propose a task of party-specific extractive summarization for legal contracts . they train a pairwise importance ranker and propose incorporating domain-specific notions of importance . |
| Outcome: | The proposed system generates a party-specific contract summary using a dataset of lease agreements and lease agreements. |
LJPCheck: Functional Tests for Legal Judgment Prediction (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing LJP models fail to evaluate specific aspects of their performance, such as legal fairness and judicial fairness. |
| Approach: | They propose a suite of functional tests for LJP models to comprehend LJp models’ behaviors and offer diagnostic insights. |
| Outcome: | Extensive tests reveal weaknesses in LJP models and provide diagnostic insights. |