← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2608.17168 · v3
Can LLMs Reason in a Legally Meaningful Manner? A Small-scale Study on European Court of Human Rights Cases
首次提交 2026-08-18 06:11
版本更新 2026-11-05 23:54
雷达观测 2026-11-06 12:09
摘要
Reasoning has become a standard technique and feature for contemporary LLMs; however, its application and quality in the context of demanding legal-oriented tasks, such as legal case forecasting, remain under explored. We investigate how LLMs reason in the context of legal case forecasting, using legal cases from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as a testbed. We evaluate OpenAI GPT 5.4, a recent top-tier LLM, by exploring alternative prompting strategies that are more or less suggestive of what counts as legally meaningful reasoning in the context of ECtHR jurisprudence. We present our findings derived from assessing the model's responses with both human and LLM evaluation. We find that the examined model scores far from ideal in legal reasoning, the model produces structurally complete but substantively shallow analyses, and that LLM-as-a-Judge evaluators are internally consistent yet align only weakly with our trained annotators, i.e., reliable but not a valid substitute for human evaluation. Overall, the expert-curated prompt leads to more comprehensive reasoning, which does not result in more accurate predictions compared to the other examined settings. Based on our findings, we urge the community not to rely solely on automated LLM-based evaluation and to avoid using task accuracy as an appropriate proxy for reasoning quality.
作者备注：24 pages, 4 figures, 4 tables, Submitted to AI4LAW Workshop at ICML 2026, github link attached
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v3 · 2026-11-05 23:54 · 最新观测版本
Can LLMs Reason in a Legally Meaningful Manner? A Small-scale Study on European Court of Human Rights Cases
Reasoning has become a standard technique and feature for contemporary LLMs; however, its application and quality in the context of demanding legal-oriented tasks, such as legal case forecasting, remain under explored. We investigate how LLMs reason in the context of legal case forecasting, using legal cases from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as a testbed. We evaluate OpenAI GPT 5.4, a recent top-tier LLM, by exploring alternative prompting strategies that are more or less suggestive of what counts as legally meaningful reasoning in the context of ECtHR jurisprudence. We present our findings derived from assessing the model's responses with both human and LLM evaluation. We find that the examined model scores far from ideal in legal reasoning, the model produces structurally complete but substantively shallow analyses, and that LLM-as-a-Judge evaluators are internally consistent yet align only weakly with our trained annotators, i.e., reliable but not a valid substitute for human evaluation. Overall, the expert-curated prompt leads to more comprehensive reasoning, which does not result in more accurate predictions compared to the other examined settings. Based on our findings, we urge the community not to rely solely on automated LLM-based evaluation and to avoid using task accuracy as an appropriate proxy for reasoning quality.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗