While large language models (LLMs) augmented with agentic search capabilities show promise for legal reasoning, they overlook a fundamental constraint that applicable law must match the temporal context of each case, as retroactive application of statutes violates core legal principles and leads to erroneous conclusions. Our observations reveal that current legal LLMs suffer from temporal bias anchored to their training cutoff, while search agents rarely incorporate temporal constraints into queries, and that web search alone cannot provide the precise statute and precedent citations that legal reasoning demands. To address these challenges, we propose LegalSearch-R1, an end-to-end reinforcement learning framework that pairs local statute RAG for precise article matching with online web search for broader legal knowledge, trained on temporally-indexed data spanning multiple amendment periods to enforce temporal consistency. Extensive experiments on our benchmark covering 13 legal tasks demonstrate that our 7B-parameter agent outperforms state-of-the-art deep research frameworks and specialized legal LLMs by 12.9% to 29.8%, surpasses baselines by 57.7% to 80.3% on temporal consistency, and exhibits robust out-of-domain generalization. The code and data are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LegalSearch-R1.

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 rules encompass not only codified statutes but also implicit adjudicatory principles derived from precedents that contain discretionary norms, social morality, and policy. While computational legal research has advanced in applying established rules to cases, inducing legal rules from judicial decisions remains understudied across jurisdictions. The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) offers unprecedented potential to automate the extraction of such latent principles, yet progress is stymied by the absence of formal task definitions and benchmarks. To address this gap, we formalize Legal Rule Induction (LRI) as the task of deriving concise, generalizable doctrinal rules from analogous precedents, distilling their shared preconditions, normative behaviors, and legal consequences. We further propose a reproducible pipeline for LRI dataset construction and, instantiating it on Chinese law as a representative jurisdiction, introduce the first LRI benchmark comprising 5,121 case sets (38,088 court cases) for model tuning and 216 expert-annotated gold test sets. Experimental results reveal that: 1) State-of-the-art LLMs struggle with over-generalization and hallucination; 2) Training on our dataset markedly enhances LLMs’ capabilities in capturing nuanced rule patterns across similar cases.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to real-world legal tasks, evaluating the reliability of their open-ended legal responses has become essential. These tasks require context-sensitive answers and allow little room for error, motivating fine-grained and diagnostic evaluation that can identify specific sources of response quality failures. We introduce LexRubric, a rubric-based benchmark for evaluating open-ended Chinese legal tasks. LexRubric contains 649 instances from legal consultation and judicial examination, which reflect both everyday legal needs and professional legal reasoning and cover 14 legal scenarios. It further includes 12,337 expert-written atomic scoring criteria organized under a unified six-dimensional framework, enabling accurate evaluation and diagnostic analysis across tasks and evaluation dimensions. To validate the reliability of the evaluation, we test multiple judge models and compare model-based judgments with human judgments. We further evaluate 18 recent general and legal-domain LLMs on LexRubric. Results show that different models exhibit distinct capability profiles, and that open-ended legal tasks remain challenging for current LLMs. Data is available at: <https://github.com/foggpoy/LexRubric>.

Lawyer-client consultation is a critical starting point for legal services. Effective legal assistance hinges on eliciting sufficient and truthful information from clients in order to devise strategies that best protect their interests. This task requires Large Language Models (LLMs) not only to perform robust legal reasoning, but also to strategically elicit material facts through multi-turn interactions and effectively guide clients with diverse personalities. Yet existing legal benchmarks overlook this interactive capability. To fill this gap, we introduce DLawBench, a diagnostic benchmark for real-world legal consultation. Drawing on realistic client behavior, we characterize lawyer-client interactions into four types: Cooperative, Dependent, Withdrawn, and Adversarial. Using dialogues grounded in real cases, DLawBench evaluates whether LLMs can effectively conduct legal consultation under realistic conditions. DLawBench comprises 461 cases from Chinese and U.S. law, 5,532 paired fact entries, 3,411 inquiry rubrics, and 3,348 issue-resolution rubrics, and evaluates 26 representative LLMs. Systematic experiments show substantial headroom: the best-performing model, GPT-5.5, achieves only 0.562 on consultation-grounded legal reasoning. More importantly, DLawBench exposes both sycophancy in legal consultation and a paradox: models perform worse when clients need guidance most.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to legal domain-specific tasks, evaluating their ability to perform legal work in real-world settings has become essential. However, existing legal benchmarks rely on simplified and highly standardized tasks, failing to capture the ambiguity, complexity, and reasoning demands of real legal practice. Moreover, prior evaluations often adopt coarse, single-dimensional metrics and do not explicitly assess fine-grained legal reasoning. To address these limitations, we introduce PLawBench, a Practical Law Benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs in realistic legal practice scenarios. Grounded in real-world legal workflows, PLawBench models the core processes of legal practitioners through three task categories: public legal consultation, practical case analysis, and legal document generation. These tasks assess a model’s ability to identify legal issues and key facts, perform structured legal reasoning, and generate legally coherent documents. PLawBench comprises 850 questions across 13 practical legal scenarios, with each question accompanied by expert-designed evaluation rubrics, resulting in approximately 12,500 rubric items for fine-grained assessment. Using an LLM-based evaluator aligned with human expert judgments, we evaluate 10 state-of-the-art LLMs. Experimental results show that none achieves strong performance on PLawBench, revealing substantial limitations in the fine-grained legal reasoning capabilities of current LLMs and highlighting important directions for future evaluation and development of legal LLMs. Data is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/PLawbench-B524/.

Legal RAG systems often retrieve passages by semantic relevance, lexical score, or citation match. In versioned legal corpora, however, a passage can be topically relevant and citation-matched while being legally invalid for the operative date. We study law-in-force retrieval: retrieving evidence that matches the authority, is valid at the operative date, and supports the answer. We build LawInForce-eCFR from 805 human-validated eCFR/CFR amendment pairs and 3,220 controlled answer-flipping yes/no questions. We also present AuthorityFirst-RAG, a transparent diagnostic retriever that decomposes retrieval into authority identification, temporal scoping, and rule-support ranking. AuthorityFirst-RAG improves Recall@1 from 2.80% for BM25-date-filter to 30.90%, but generation remains difficult even with GoldOracle evidence. These results show a dual bottleneck in versioned legal RAG: retrieving the law in force and applying numeric legal rules.

Legal judgment prediction (LJP), which enables litigants and their lawyers to forecast judgment outcomes and refine litigation strategies, has emerged as a crucial legal NLP task. Existing studies typically utilize legal facts, i.e., facts that have been established by evidence and determined by the judge, to predict the judgment. However, legal facts are often difficult to obtain in the early stages of litigation, significantly limiting the practical applicability of fact-based LJP. To address this limitation, we propose a novel legal NLP task: legal fact prediction (LFP), which takes the evidence submitted by litigants for trial as input to predict legal facts, thereby empowering fact-based LJP technologies to make predictions in the absence of ground-truth legal facts. We also propose the first benchmark dataset, LFPBench, for evaluating the LFP task. Our extensive experiments on LFPBench demonstrate the effectiveness of LFP-empowered LJP and highlight promising research directions for LFP.

In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely applied to legal tasks. To enhance their understanding of legal texts and improve reasoning accuracy, a promising approach is to incorporate legal theories. One of the most widely adopted theories is the Four-Element Theory (FET), which defines the crime constitution through four elements: Subject, Object, Subjective Aspect, and Objective Aspect. While recent work has explored prompting LLMs to follow FET, our evaluation demonstrates that LLM-generated four-elements are often incomplete and less representative, limiting their effectiveness in legal reasoning.To address these issues, we present JUREX-4E, an expert-annotated four-element knowledge base covering 155 criminal charges. The annotations follow a progressive hierarchical framework grounded in legal source validity and incorporate diverse interpretive methods to ensure precision and authority. We evaluate JUREX-4E on the Similar Charge Disambiguation task and apply it to Legal Case Retrieval. Experimental results validate the high quality of JUREX-4E and its substantial impact on downstream legal tasks, underscoring its potential for advancing legal AI applications. The dataset and code are available at: https://github.com/THUlawtech/JUREX

Recently, a number of repository-level code generation benchmarks–such as CoderEval, DevEval, RepoEval, RepoBench, and LongCode-Arena–have emerged to evaluate the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) beyond standalone benchmarks like HumanEval and MBPP. Thus, a natural question is, would LLMs have similar performance in real world coding tasks as their performance in these benchmarks? Unfortunately, one cannot answer this question, since these benchmarks consist of short completions, synthetic examples, or focus on limited scale repositories, failing to represent real-world coding tasks.To address these challenges, we create RepoCod, a Python code-generation benchmark containing complex tasks with realistic dependencies in real-world large projects and appropriate metrics for evaluating source code. It includes 980 whole-function generation tasks from 11 popular projects, 50.8% of which require repository-level context. RepoCod includes 314 developer-written test cases per instance for better evaluation. We evaluate ten LLMs on RepoCod and find that none achieves more than 30% pass@1 on RepoCod, indicating the necessity of building stronger LLMs that can help developers in real-world software development. In addition, we found that retrieval-augmented generation achieves better results than using target function dependencies as context.

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.

Statute retrieval aims to find relevant statutory articles for specific queries. This process is the basis of a wide range of legal applications such as legal advice, automated judicial decisions, legal document drafting, etc. Existing statute retrieval benchmarks emphasize formal and professional queries from sources like bar exams and legal case documents, thereby neglecting non-professional queries from the general public, which often lack precise legal terminology and references. To address this gap, we introduce the STAtute Retrieval Dataset (STARD), a Chinese dataset comprising 1,543 query cases collected from real-world legal consultations and 55,348 candidate statutory articles. Unlike existing statute retrieval datasets, which primarily focus on professional legal queries, STARD captures the complexity and diversity of real queries from the general public. Through a comprehensive evaluation of various retrieval baselines, we reveal that existing retrieval approaches all fall short of these real queries issued by non-professional users. The best method only achieves a Recall@100 of 0.907, suggesting the necessity for further exploration and additional research in this area.

Hallucinations in large language models (LLMs) refer to the phenomenon of LLMs producing responses that are coherent yet factually inaccurate. This issue undermines the effectiveness of LLMs in practical applications, necessitating research into detecting and mitigating hallucinations of LLMs. Previous studies have mainly concentrated on post-processing techniques for hallucination detection, which tend to be computationally intensive and limited in effectiveness due to their separation from the LLM’s inference process. To overcome these limitations, we introduce MIND, an unsupervised training framework that leverages the internal states of LLMs for real-time hallucination detection without requiring manual annotations. Additionally, we present HELM, a new benchmark for evaluating hallucination detection across multiple LLMs, featuring diverse LLM outputs and the internal states of LLMs during their inference process. Our experiments demonstrate that MIND outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods in hallucination detection.