Despite the rapid advancements of Large Language Models (LLMs), safety risks remain a critical challenge for low-resource languages. Existing safety datasets are predominantly English-centric, limiting progress in multilingual safety alignment. As a result, low-resource expert models—fine-tuned on their respective instruction datasets—tend to exhibit higher unsafety rates compared to their high-resource counterparts. In this work, we propose a safety aware layer swapping method that transfers safety alignment from an English safety expert to low-resource language experts without additional training. To further enhance transfer ability, our method adaptively selects or blends modules based on their degree of specialization. Our approach preserves performance on general language understanding tasks while enhancing safety in the target languages. Experimental results show that the proposed method achieves comparable performance to the language expert on general benchmarks such as MMMLU, BELEBELE, and MGSM, while producing more aligned and less harmful responses on the MultiJail safety benchmark

How capable are large language models (LLMs) in the domain of taxation? Although numerous studies have explored the legal domain, research dedicated to taxation remains scarce. Moreover, the datasets used in these studies are either simplified, failing to reflect the real-world complexities, or not released as open-source. To address this gap, we introduce PLAT, a new benchmark designed to assess the ability of LLMs to predict the legitimacy of additional tax penalties. PLAT comprises 300 examples: (1) 100 binary-choice questions, (2) 100 multiple-choice questions, and (3) 100 essay-type questions, all derived from 100 Korean court precedents. PLAT is constructed to evaluate not only LLMs’ understanding of tax law but also their performance in legal cases that require complex reasoning beyond straight forward application of statutes. Our systematic experiments with multiple LLMs reveal that (1) their baseline capabilities are limited, especially in cases involving conflicting issues that require a comprehensive understanding (not only of the statutes but also of the taxpayer’s circumstances), and (2) LLMs struggle particularly with the “AC” stages of “IRAC” even for advanced reasoning models like o3, which actively employ inference-time scaling.

We introduce the Korean Canonical Legal Benchmark (KCL), a benchmark designed to assess language models’ legal reasoning capabilities independently of domain-specific knowledge. KCL provides question-level supporting precedents, enabling a more faithful disentanglement of reasoning ability from parameterized knowledge. KCL consists of two components: (1) KCL-MCQA, multiple-choice problems of 283 questions with 1,103 aligned precedents, and (2) KCL-Essay, open-ended generation problems of 169 questions with 550 aligned precedents and 2,739 instance-level rubrics for automated evaluation. Our systematic evaluation of 30+ models shows large remaining gaps, particularly in KCL-Essay, and that reasoning-specialized models consistently outperform their general-purpose counterparts. We release all resources, including the benchmark dataset and evaluation code, at https://github.com/lbox-kr/kcl.

To improve the performance and explainability of LLM-based natural language reasoning, structured reasoning can be applied to generate explicitly structured proofs. Among different methods for structured reasoning, we specifically focus on backward chaining, where the proof goal is recursively decomposed to subgoals by searching and applying rules. We argue that current LLM-based backward chaining systems (e.g. Least-to-most prompting and LAMBADA) are incomplete, as they omit crucial algorithmic components identified from the classic backward chaining algorithm in computational logic (SLD Resolution). To this end, we propose a novel backward chaining system, SymBa (Symbolic Backward Chaining), which integrates a symbolic solver and an LLM. In SymBa, the solver controls the proof process, and the LLM is only called when the solver requires new information to complete the proof. Empowered by completeness, SymBa achieves a significant improvement in seven deductive, relational, and arithmetic reasoning benchmarks compared to the baselines.

Legal Case Retrieval (LCR), which retrieves relevant cases from a query case, is a fundamental task for legal professionals in research and decision-making. However, existing studies on LCR face two major limitations. First, they are evaluated on relatively small-scale retrieval corpora (e.g., 100-55K cases) and use a narrow range of criminal query types, which cannot sufficiently reflect the complexity of real-world legal retrieval scenarios. Second, their reliance on embedding-based or lexical matching methods often results in limited representations and legally irrelevant matches. To address these issues, we present: (1) LEGAR BENCH, the first large-scale Korean LCR benchmark, covering 411 diverse crime types in queries over 1.2M candidate cases; and (2) LegalSearchLM, a retrieval model that performs legal element reasoning over the query case and directly generates content containing those elements, grounded in the target cases through constrained decoding. Experimental results show that LegalSearchLM outperforms baselines by 6 - 20% on LEGAR BENCH, achieving state-of-the-art performance. It also demonstrates strong generalization to out-of-domain cases, outperforming naive generative models trained on in-domain data by 15%.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in the legal domain, with GPT-4 even passing the Uniform Bar Exam in the U.S. However their efficacy remains limited for non-standardized tasks and tasks in languages other than English. This underscores the need for careful evaluation of LLMs within each legal system before application.Here, we introduce KBL, a benchmark for assessing the Korean legal language understanding of LLMs, consisting of (1) 7 legal knowledge tasks (510 examples), (2) 4 legal reasoning tasks (288 examples), and (3) the Korean bar exam (4 domains, 53 tasks, 2,510 examples). First two datasets were developed in close collaboration with lawyers to evaluate LLMs in practical scenarios in a certified manner. Furthermore, considering legal practitioners’ frequent use of extensive legal documents for research, we assess LLMs in both a closed book setting, where they rely solely on internal knowledge, and a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) setting, using a corpus of Korean statutes and precedents. The results indicate substantial room and opportunities for improvement.

The statistical analysis of large scale legal corpus can provide valuable legal insights. For such analysis one needs to (1) select a subset of the corpus using document retrieval tools, (2) structure text using information extraction (IE) systems, and (3) visualize the data for the statistical analysis. Each process demands either specialized tools or programming skills whereas no comprehensive unified “no-code” tools have been available. Here we provide NESTLE, a no-code tool for large-scale statistical analysis of legal corpus. Powered by a Large Language Model (LLM) and the internal custom end-to-end IE system, NESTLE can extract any type of information that has not been predefined in the IE system opening up the possibility of unlimited customizable statistical analysis of the corpus without writing a single line of code. We validate our system on 15 Korean precedent IE tasks and 3 legal text classification tasks from LexGLUE. The comprehensive experiments reveal NESTLE can achieve GPT-4 comparable performance by training the internal IE module with 4 human-labeled, and 192 LLM-labeled examples.

Legal practitioners often face a vast amount of documents. Lawyers, for instance, search for appropriate precedents favorable to their clients, while the number of legal precedents is ever-growing. Although legal search engines can assist finding individual target documents and narrowing down the number of candidates, retrieved information is often presented as unstructured text and users have to examine each document thoroughly which could lead to information overloading. This also makes their statistical analysis challenging. Here, we present an end-to-end information extraction (IE) system for legal documents. By formulating IE as a generation task, our system can be easily applied to various tasks without domain-specific engineering effort. The experimental results of four IE tasks on Korean precedents shows that our IE system can achieve competent scores (-2.3 on average) compared to the rule-based baseline with as few as 50 training examples per task and higher score (+5.4 on average) with 200 examples. Finally, our statistical analysis on two case categories — drunk driving and fraud — with 35k precedents reveals the resulting structured information from our IE system faithfully reflects the macroscopic features of Korean legal system.

A real-world information extraction (IE) system for semi-structured document images often involves a long pipeline of multiple modules, whose complexity dramatically increases its development and maintenance cost. One can instead consider an end-to-end model that directly maps the input to the target output and simplify the entire process. However, such generation approach is known to lead to unstable performance if not designed carefully. Here we present our recent effort on transitioning from our existing pipeline-based IE system to an end-to-end system focusing on practical challenges that are associated with replacing and deploying the system in real, large-scale production. By carefully formulating document IE as a sequence generation task, we show that a single end-to-end IE system can be built and still achieve competent performance.