While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive general capabilities, their direct application in the legal domain is often hindered by a lack of precise domain knowledge and complexity of performing rigorous multi-step judicial reasoning. To address this gap, we present LegalOne, a family of foundational models specifically tailored for the Chinese legal domain. LegalOne is developed through a comprehensive three-phase pipeline designed to master legal reasoning. First, during mid-training phase, we propose Plasticity-Adjusted Sampling (PAS) to address the challenge of domain adaptation. This perplexity-based scheduler strikes a balance between the acquisition of new knowledge and the retention of original capabilities, effectively establishing a robust legal foundation. Second, during supervised fine-tuning, we employ Legal Agentic CoT Distillation (LEAD) to distill explicit reasoning from raw legal texts. Unlike naive distillation, LEAD utilizes an agentic workflow to convert complex judicial processes into structured reasoning trajectories, thereby enforcing factual grounding and logical rigor. Finally, we implement a Curriculum Reinforcement Learning (RL) strategy. Through a progressive reinforcement process spanning memorization, understanding, and reasoning, LegalOne evolves from simple pattern matching to autonomous and reliable legal reasoning. Experimental results demonstrate that LegalOne achieves state-of-the-art performance across a wide range of legal tasks, surpassing general-purpose LLMs with vastly larger parameter counts through enhanced knowledge density and efficiency.

Legal judgment prediction (LJP) aims to predict judicial outcomes from case facts and typically includes law article, charge, and sentencing prediction. While recent methods perform well on the first two subtasks, legal sentencing prediction (LSP) remains difficult due to its need for fine-grained objective knowledge and flexible subjective reasoning. To address these limitations, we propose MSR², a framework that integrates multi-source retrieval and reasoning in LLMs with reinforcement learning. MSR² enables LLMs to perform multi-source retrieval based on reasoning needs and applies a process-level reward to guide intermediate subjective reasoning steps. Experiments on two real-world datasets show that MSR² improves both accuracy and interpretability in LSP, providing a promising step toward practical legal AI. Our code is available at https://github.com/cjj826/MSR2.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for long-form generation, reliably evaluating long-form outputs has become a critical challenge. LLM-as-a-judge offers a scalable alternative to human evaluation, yet its reliability in long-form output evaluation remains underexamined: existing meta-evaluation benchmarks focus mainly on short-form outputs. Compared with short-form evaluation, long-form evaluation is not merely a matter of output length; it often requires judges to handle more complex document-level demands. In this work, we introduce LongJudgeBench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLM judges on long-form outputs across diverse real-world scenarios and judging protocols. We systematically evaluate a broad range of LLM judges, covering multiple base models and judging settings. Our results reveal a substantial reliability gap: current LLM judges remain unstable across scenarios, and rubrics or references are helpful but not always sufficient. We hope LongJudgeBench will support future research on more robust, context-aware, and human-aligned LLM-as-a-judge methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/cjj826/LongJudgeBench.

The use of large language models (LLMs) as automated evaluation tools to assess the quality of generated natural language, known as ”LLMs-as-Judges”, has demonstrated promising capabilities and is rapidly gaining widespread attention. However, when applied to pairwise comparisons of candidate responses, LLM-based evaluators often exhibit selection bias. Specifically, their judgments may become inconsistent when the option positions or ID tokens are swapped, compromising the effectiveness and fairness of the evaluation result. To address this challenge, we introduce CalibraEval, a novel label-free method for mitigating selection bias during inference. Specifically, CalibraEval reformulates debiasing as an optimization task aimed at adjusting observed prediction distributions to align with unbiased prediction distributions. To solve this optimization problem, we propose a non-parametric order-preserving algorithm (NOA). This algorithm leverages the partial order relationships between model prediction distributions, thereby eliminating the need for explicit labels and precise mathematical function modeling. Empirical evaluations of LLMs in multiple representative benchmarks demonstrate that CalibraEval effectively mitigates selection bias and improves performance compared to existing debiasing methods. This work marks a step toward building more robust and unbiased automated evaluation frameworks, paving the way for improved reliability in AI-driven assessments. The code can be found at https://github.com/CSHaitao/CalibraEval.

With the increasing intelligence and autonomy of LLM Agents, their potential applications in the legal domain are becoming increasingly apparent. However, existing general-domain benchmarks are unable to fully capture the complexity and subtle nuances inherent in real-world judicial cognition and decision-making. Therefore, we propose LegalAgentBench, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLM Agents in the Chinese legal domain. LegalAgentBench includes 17 corpora from real-world legal scenarios and provides 37 tools for interacting with external knowledge. To cover tasks of varying difficulty and types, we designed a scalable task construction process that enables a more precise evaluation of performance in both tool utilization and reasoning. Moreover, Beyond assessing performance through the success rate of final outcomes, LegalAgentBench incorporates keyword analysis during intermediate processes to calculate progress rates, facilitating a more fine-grained evaluation. We evaluated eight popular LLMs, highlighting the strengths, limitations, and potential areas for improvement of existing models and methods. LegalAgentBench sets a new benchmark for the practical application of LLMs in the legal domain, with its code and data available at https://github.com/CSHaitao/LegalAgentBench.