Daily Arxiv

This is a page that curates AI-related papers published worldwide.
All content here is summarized using Google Gemini and operated on a non-profit basis.
Copyright for each paper belongs to the authors and their institutions; please make sure to credit the source when sharing.

Large Language Models Meet Legal Artificial Intelligence: A Survey

Created by
  • Haebom

Author

Zhitian Hou, Zihan Ye, Nanli Zeng, Tianyong Hao, Kun Zeng

Outline

This paper focuses on large-scale language models (LLMs), which have made significant progress in the field of legal artificial intelligence (Legal AI) in recent years. To advance the research and application of LLM-based legal approaches, this paper provides a comprehensive review of 16 LLM series and 47 LLM-based legal task frameworks, and collects 15 benchmarks and 29 datasets to assess various legal competencies. Furthermore, it analyzes the challenges of LLM-based legal approaches and discusses future directions. It aims to provide a systematic introduction for beginners and encourage future research in this field. Related materials can be found at https://github.com/ZhitianHou/LLMs4LegalAI .

Takeaways, Limitations

Takeaways:
We provide a comprehensive review of the LLM in Law and related frameworks, benchmarks, and datasets to lay the foundation for Legal AI research.
It presents the current status and future research directions of LLM-based legal approaches, thereby contributing to future research and development.
We lower the barrier to entry into the field of Legal AI by providing systematic resources for beginners.
Promote research reproducibility and sharing by sharing data through GitHub.
Limitations:
The paper may lack detailed descriptions of objective evaluation criteria and methodologies for the LLM, frameworks, benchmarks, and datasets mentioned in the paper.
Due to the rapidly evolving nature of the LLM field, new technologies and research findings may emerge after the paper is published, reducing the timeliness of the information.
There may be a lack of in-depth discussion of bias issues and ethical considerations in the reviewed LLMs and frameworks.
👍