Statutory retrieval is necessary for citation-grounded legal question answering, but remains underexplored for Greek. We introduce GreekBarRetrieval, a public retrieval benchmark derived from, and complementing GreekBarBench, which did not include retrieval. The new benchmark comprises 283 bar-exam questions, each accompanied by the facts of the case it refers to, and 6,308 candidate statutory articles to retrieve from. Questions and facts are stated in everyday language, but need to be mapped to the formal terminology of statutes and their abstract legal concepts. A further complication is that not all of the case facts are relevant to each question of a case. Experimenting with three BM25 variants and nine dense retrievers, we find that vanilla dense retrieval far outperforms vanilla sparse retrieval in Recall@100. However, LLM-based query reformulation helps BM25 close that gap, while also improving dense retrieval. With a ten-round ReAct-like LLM reformulation loop that we introduce, BM25 improves further in Recall@100 and obtains the best nDCG and MAP scores of all tested retrievers. Query reformulation also outperforms pseudo-relevance feedback, sparse-dense fusion, and English translation.

This paper presents the systems we developed for RIRAG-2025, a shared task that requires answering regulatory questions by retrieving relevant passages. The generated answers are evaluated using RePASs, a reference-free and model-based metric. Our systems use a combination of three retrieval models and a reranker. We show that by exploiting a neural component of RePASs that extracts important sentences (‘obligations’) from the retrieved passages, we achieve a dubiously high score (0.947), even though the answers are directly extracted from the retrieved passages and are not actually generated answers. We then show that by selecting the answer with the best RePASs among a few generated alternatives and then iteratively refining this answer by reducing contradictions and covering more obligations, we can generate readable, coherent answers that achieve a more plausible and relatively high score (0.639).

We introduce GreekBarBench, a benchmark that evaluates LLMs on legal questions across five different legal areas from the Greek Bar exams, requiring citations to statutory articles and case facts. To tackle the challenges of free-text evaluation, we propose a three-dimensional scoring system combined with an LLM-as-a-judge approach. We also develop a meta-evaluation benchmark to assess the correlation between LLM-judges and human expert evaluations, revealing that simple, span-based rubrics improve their alignment. Our extensive evaluation of 13 proprietary and open-weight LLMs shows that even though the top models exhibit impressive performance, they remain susceptible to critical errors, most notably a failure to identify the correct statutory articles.

The SemEval task on Argument Reasoning in Civil Procedure is challenging in that it requires understanding legal concepts and inferring complex arguments. Currently, most Large Language Models (LLM) excelling in the legal realm are principally purposed for classification tasks, hence their reasoning rationale is subject to contention. The approach we advocate involves using a powerful teacher-LLM (ChatGPT) to extend the training dataset with explanations and generate synthetic data. The resulting data are then leveraged to fine-tune a small student-LLM. Contrary to previous work, our explanations are not directly derived from the teacher’s internal knowledge. Instead they are grounded in authentic human analyses, therefore delivering a superior reasoning signal. Additionally, a new ‘mutation’ method generates artificial data instances inspired from existing ones. We are publicly releasing the explanations as an extension to the original dataset, along with the synthetic dataset and the prompts that were used to generate both. Our system ranked 15th in the SemEval competition. It outperforms its own teacher and can produce explanations aligned with the original human analyses, as verified by legal experts.

We present Legal Argument Reasoning (LAR), a novel task designed to evaluate the legal reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). The task requires selecting the correct next statement (from multiple choice options) in a chain of legal arguments from court proceedings, given the facts of the case. We constructed a dataset (LAR-ECHR) for this task using cases from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). We evaluated seven general-purpose LLMs on LAR-ECHR and found that (a) the ranking of the models is aligned with that of LegalBench, an established US-based legal reasoning benchmark, even though LAR-ECHR is based on EU law, (b) LAR-ECHR distinguishes top models more clearly, compared to LegalBench, (c) even the best model (GPT-4o) obtains 75.8% accuracy on LAR-ECHR, indicating significant potential for further model improvement. The process followed to construct LAR-ECHR can be replicated with cases from other legal systems.