Conditioning Large Language Models on Legal Systems? Detecting Punishable Hate Speech
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The assessment of legal problems requires the consideration of a specific legal system and its levels of abstraction, from constitutional law to statutory law to case law. The extent to which Large Language Models (LLMs) internalize such legal systems is unknown. In this paper, we propose and investigate different approaches to condition LLMs at different levels of abstraction in legal systems. This paper examines different approaches to conditioning LLMs at multiple levels of abstraction in legal systems to detect potentially punishable hate speech. We focus on the task of classifying whether a specific social media posts falls under the criminal offense of incitement to hatred as prescribed by the German Criminal Code. The results show that there is still a significant performance gap between models and legal experts in the legal assessment of hate speech, regardless of the level of abstraction with which the models were conditioned. Our analysis revealed, that models conditioned on abstract legal knowledge lacked deep task understanding, often contradicting themselves and hallucinating answers, while models using concrete legal knowledge performed reasonably well in identifying relevant target groups, but struggled with classifying target conducts.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Jun 2025.
Builds on
17 of 33 references.
References · 17
- 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,884
- 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,412
- 2024Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phonecited by 1,908
- 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 797
- 2022A Survey on In-context Learningcited by 719
- 2019Neural Legal Judgment Prediction in Englishcited by 208
- 2024Let Me Speak Freely? A Study on the Impact of Format Restrictions on Performance of Large Language Modelscited by 92
- 2021Detecting Hate Speech with GPT-3cited by 56
- 2022Legal Prompt Engineering for Multilingual Legal Judgement Predictioncited by 55
- 2016Analyzing the Targets of Hate in Online Social Mediacited by 49
- 2023You Only Prompt Once: On the Capabilities of Prompt Learning on Large Language Models to Tackle Toxic Contentcited by 39
- 2023Legal Syllogism Prompting: Teaching Large Language Models for Legal Judgment Predictioncited by 37
5 more
- 2023Sensitivity and Robustness of Large Language Models to Prompt Template in Japanese Text Classification Taskscited by 25
- 2022ToKen: Task Decomposition and Knowledge Infusion for Few-Shot Hate Speech Detectioncited by 15
- 2020A Legal Approach to Hate Speech: Operationalizing the EU's Legal Framework against the Expression of Hatred as an NLP Taskcited by 11
- 2024The Factuality of Large Language Models in the Legal Domaincited by 10
- 2023HumBEL: A Human-in-the-Loop Approach for Evaluating Demographic Factors of Language Models in Human-Machine Conversationscited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.