Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.19427

How Do LLMs Understand Legal Philosophy? Diagnosing Legal-Philosophical Reasoning in LLMs

Shuyuan Zheng·Yun-seo Lee·Xing Gao·Jialu Wu·Jiabao Hu·Katrina Qiyao Wang·Xinbo Lin·Qianying Liu·Chuan Xiao·Tao Huang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Legal reasoning is a fundamental capability for large language models (LLMs) to complete legal AI tasks such as legal judgment prediction. In legal practice, this reasoning is shaped by legal philosophy: a judge's view of the nature and sources of law guides how legal materials are interpreted and applied, so judges working from the same statutes and precedents can reach different judgments. Existing research has largely overlooked whether LLMs can understand legal philosophy and apply it in legal reasoning, an ability we call \textit{legal-philosophical reasoning}. To fill this gap, we introduce LePhilBench, a benchmark for evaluating the legal-philosophical reasoning of LLMs that comprises two benchmarking tasks and a dataset. The two tasks evaluate how well LLMs understand legal philosophy and how well they apply it in legal reasoning, respectively. The dataset is manually and meticulously constructed. Its test set contains 220 U.S. Supreme Court opinions. A law professor designed fourteen annotation questions on legal philosophy, and three law-trained annotators with formal training in jurisprudence answered all fourteen questions for every opinion, yielding 9,240 legal-philosophical labels. LePhilBench takes the first step toward exploring legal-philosophical reasoning in LLMs.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shuyuan Zheng, Yun-seo Lee, Xing Gao, Jialu Wu, Jiabao Hu, Katrina Qiyao Wang, Xinbo Lin, Qianying Liu, Chuan Xiao, Tao Huang. 2026-10-14. How Do LLMs Understand Legal Philosophy? Diagnosing Legal-Philosophical Reasoning in LLMs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.19427

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Learning From How Humans Correct

In industry NLP application, our manually labeled data has a certain number of noisy data. We present a simple method to find the noisy data and relabel them manually, meanwhile we collect the correction information. Then we present novel method to incorporate the human correction information into deep learning model. Human know how to correct noisy data. So the correction information can be inject into deep learning model. We do the experiment on our own text classification dataset, which is manually labeled, because we need to relabel the noisy data in our dataset for our industry application. The experiment result shows that our learn-on-correction method improve the classification accuracy from 91.7% to 92.5% in test dataset. The 91.7% accuracy is trained on the corrected dataset, which improve the baseline from 83.3% to 91.7% in test dataset. The accuracy under human evaluation achieves more than 97%.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

MBBQ: A Dataset for Cross-Lingual Comparison of Stereotypes in Generative LLMs

Generative large language models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit harmful biases and stereotypes. While safety fine-tuning typically takes place in English, if at all, these models are being used by speakers of many different languages. There is existing evidence that the performance of these models is inconsistent across languages and that they discriminate based on demographic factors of the user. Motivated by this, we investigate whether the social stereotypes exhibited by LLMs differ as a function of the language used to prompt them, while controlling for cultural differences and task accuracy. To this end, we present MBBQ (Multilingual Bias Benchmark for Question-answering), a carefully curated version of the English BBQ dataset extended to Dutch, Spanish, and Turkish, which measures stereotypes commonly held across these languages. We further complement MBBQ with a parallel control dataset to measure task performance on the question-answering task independently of bias. Our results based on several open-source and proprietary LLMs confirm that some non-English languages suffer from bias more than English, even when controlling for cultural shifts. Moreover, we observe significant cross-lingual differences in bias behaviour for all except the most accurate models. With the release of MBBQ, we hope to encourage further research on bias in multilingual settings. The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/Veranep/MBBQ.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

LLMR: Knowledge Distillation with a Large Language Model-Induced Reward

Large language models have become increasingly popular and demonstrated remarkable performance in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, these models are typically computationally expensive and difficult to be deployed in resource-constrained environments. In this paper, we propose LLMR, a novel knowledge distillation (KD) method based on a reward function induced from large language models. We conducted experiments on multiple datasets in the dialogue generation and summarization tasks. Empirical results demonstrate that our LLMR approach consistently outperforms traditional KD methods in different tasks and datasets.

cs.CL↗