Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper identifies a critical measurement gap in evaluating large language models' capabilities in doctrinal legal reasoning, which is essential for compliance with the EU AI Act's accuracy requirements for high-risk AI in the judicial domain. The authors argue that existing benchmarks focus on ancillary legal tasks rather than the core interpretive functions that are vital for legal practice. By highlighting this gap, the study underscores the urgent need for a doctrinal-reasoning benchmark to ensure that AI systems meet legal standards and effectively support judicial processes.
Without a benchmark for doctrinal legal reasoning, compliance with the EU AI Act's accuracy requirements remains unachievable, risking the integrity of AI in the judicial system.
Large language models now produce legal text of at least median quality, yet no existing benchmark can evaluate whether they perform doctrinal legal reasoning, which forms the interpretive core of legal work, rather than the ancillary, paralegal tasks that most current legal-AI evaluations measure. This measurement gap is not only methodological but legal: the EU AI Act makes "appropriate accuracy" a binding requirement for high-risk AI used in the judicial domain, yet that requirement cannot acquire operational content without the very doctrinal-reasoning benchmark the field lacks.
