Reward models are central to large language model (LLM) alignment, but they remain vulnerable to reward hacking. To evaluate reward-model robustness, we introduce RewardHackBench containing 13 reward-hacking patterns covering real life high-stakes domains and general settings, and we find severe failures on specific subcategories across eight reward models. To mitigate these failures, we propose HARVE, a training-free reward-head editing method for scalar reward models. Instead of fine-tuning the reward model, HARVE identifies a multi-directional hacking subspace from residual-stream directions associated with selected hacking subcategories, and removes the component of the reward-head vector aligned with that subspace. This directly reduces the reward head’s sensitivity to hacking-related features using only a small set of contrastive gold-hacked examples, without gradient updates or fine-tuning. Comprehensive experiments across eight reward models indicates that improves hacking robustness, outperforms fine-tuning baselines, and preserves reward-models’ general capability. Further analyses show that combining multiple target-specific residual-stream directions is more effective than relying on a single surface-level feature.

Large language models (LLMs) have precipitated a dramatic improvement in the legal domain, yet the deployment of standalone models faces significant limitations regarding hallucination, outdated information, and verifiability. Recently, LLM agents have attracted significant attention as a solution to these challenges, utilizing advanced capabilities such as planning, memory, and tool usage to meet the rigorous standards of legal practice. In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of LLM agents for legal tasks, analyzing how these architectures bridge the gap between technical capabilities and domain-specific needs. Our major contributions include: (1) systematically analyzing the technical transition from standard legal LLMs to legal agents; (2) presenting a structured taxonomy of current agent applications across distinct legal practice areas; (3) discussing evaluation methodologies specifically for agentic performance in law; and (4) identifying open challenges and outlining future directions for developing robust and autonomous legal assistants.

The potential of large language models (LLMs) in contract legal risk analysis remains underexplored. In response, this paper introduces ContractEval, the first benchmark to thoroughly evaluate whether open-source LLMs could match proprietary LLMs in identifying clause-level legal risks in commercial contracts. Using the Contract Understanding Atticus Dataset (CUAD), we assess 4 proprietary and 15 open-source LLMs. Our results highlight five key findings: (1) Proprietary models outperform open-source models in both correctness and output effectiveness. (2) Larger open-source models generally perform better, though the improvement slows down as models get bigger. (3) Reasoning (“thinking”) mode improves output effectiveness but reduces correctness, likely due to over-complicating simpler tasks. (4) Open-source models generate “no related clause” responses more frequently even when relevant clauses are present. (5) Model quantization speed up inference but at the cost of performance drop, showing the tradeoff between efficiency and accuracy. These findings suggest that while most LLMs perform at a level comparable to junior legal assistants, open-source models require targeted fine-tuning to ensure correctness and effectiveness in high-stakes legal settings. ContractEval offers a solid benchmark to guide future development of legal-domain LLMs.