ContractEval: Benchmarking LLMs for Clause-Level Legal Risk Identification in Commercial Contracts
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The potential of large language models (LLMs) in specialized domains such as legal risk analysis remains underexplored. In response to growing interest in locally deploying open-source LLMs for legal tasks while preserving data confidentiality, this paper introduces ContractEval, the first benchmark to thoroughly evaluate whether open-source LLMs could match proprietary LLMs in identifying clause-level legal risks in commercial contracts. Using the Contract Understanding Atticus Dataset (CUAD), we assess 4 proprietary and 15 open-source LLMs. Our results highlight five key findings: (1) Proprietary models outperform open-source models in both correctness and output effectiveness, though some open-source models are competitive in certain specific dimensions. (2) Larger open-source models generally perform better, though the improvement slows down as models get bigger. (3) Reasoning ("thinking") mode improves output effectiveness but reduces correctness, likely due to over-complicating simpler tasks. (4) Open-source models generate "no related clause" responses more frequently even when relevant clauses are present. This suggests "laziness" in thinking or low confidence in extracting relevant content. (5) Model quantization speeds up inference but at the cost of performance drop, showing the tradeoff between efficiency and accuracy. These findings suggest that while most LLMs perform at a level comparable to junior legal assistants, open-source models require targeted fine-tuning to ensure correctness and effectiveness in high-stakes legal settings. ContractEval offers a solid benchmark to guide future development of legal-domain LLMs.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Aug 2025.
Builds on
15 of 26 references.
References · 15
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,146
- 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,655
- 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,686
- 2021CUAD: An Expert-Annotated NLP Dataset for Legal Contract Reviewcited by 232
- 2018CAIL2018: A Large-Scale Legal Dataset for Judgment Predictioncited by 168
- 2021ContractNLI: A Dataset for Document-level Natural Language Inference for Contractscited by 145
- 2024SaulLM-7B: A pioneering Large Language Model for Lawcited by 136
- 2023LawBench: Benchmarking Legal Knowledge of Large Language Modelscited by 111
- 2025A Reasoning-Focused Legal Retrieval Benchmarkcited by 37
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 8.
9 papers.
- 2026LLM Agents in Law: Taxonomy, Applications, and Challengescited by 5
- 2025Scaling Policy Compliance Assessment in Language Models with Policy Reasoning Tracescited by 4
- 2026HARVE: Hacking-Aware Reward-Head Vector Editing for Robust Reward Modelscited by 2
- 2026LegalHalluLens: Typed Hallucination Auditing and Calibrated Multi-Agent Debate for Trustworthy Legal AIcited by 1
- 2026AI-Assisted Moot Courts: Simulating Justice-Specific Questioning in Oral Argumentscited by 0
- 2026Compiled Memory: Not More Information, but More Precise Instructions for Language Agentscited by 0
- 2026ContractScrub: A benchmark for final review of legal contractscited by 0
- 2026What the Window Does Not Contain: Auditing Provenance in a Document-Grounded Instability Benchmarkcited by 0
- 2026ContraVis: Evidence-Grounded Visual Analytics for Contradiction Review in Legal Contractscited by 0
- 2026ContraVis: Evidence-Grounded Visual Analytics for Contradiction Review in Legal Contracts22 Sep 2026
- 2026What the Window Does Not Contain: Auditing Provenance in a Document-Grounded Instability Benchmark5 Sep 2026
- 2026ContractScrub: A benchmark for final review of legal contracts20 Aug 2026
- 2026LegalHalluLens: Typed Hallucination Auditing and Calibrated Multi-Agent Debate for Trustworthy Legal AI16 Jun 2026
- 2026HARVE: Hacking-Aware Reward-Head Vector Editing for Robust Reward Models2 Jun 2026
- 2026Compiled Memory: Not More Information, but More Precise Instructions for Language Agents12 Mar 2026
- 2026AI-Assisted Moot Courts: Simulating Justice-Specific Questioning in Oral Arguments5 Mar 2026
- 2026LLM Agents in Law: Taxonomy, Applications, and Challenges8 Jan 2026
- 2025Scaling Policy Compliance Assessment in Language Models with Policy Reasoning Traces27 Sep 2025