mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

KoBLEX: Open Legal Question Answering with Multi-hop Reasoning

arXiv 2509.01324 ↗First posted 1 Sep 2025cs.CLcited by 7

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLM) have achieved remarkable performances in general domains and are now extending into the expert domain of law. Several benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate LLMs' legal capabilities. However, these benchmarks fail to evaluate open-ended and provision-grounded Question Answering (QA). To address this, we introduce a Korean Benchmark for Legal EXplainable QA (KoBLEX), designed to evaluate provision-grounded, multi-hop legal reasoning. KoBLEX includes 226 scenario-based QA instances and their supporting provisions, created using a hybrid LLM-human expert pipeline. We also propose a method called Parametric provision-guided Selection Retrieval (ParSeR), which uses LLM-generated parametric provisions to guide legally grounded and reliable answers. ParSeR facilitates multi-hop reasoning on complex legal questions by generating parametric provisions and employing a three-stage sequential retrieval process. Furthermore, to better evaluate the legal fidelity of the generated answers, we propose Legal Fidelity Evaluation (LF-Eval). LF-Eval is an automatic metric that jointly considers the question, answer, and supporting provisions and shows a high correlation with human judgments. Experimental results show that ParSeR consistently outperforms strong baselines, achieving the best results across multiple LLMs. Notably, compared to standard retrieval with GPT-4o, ParSeR achieves +37.91 higher F1 and +30.81 higher LF-Eval. Further analyses reveal that ParSeR efficiently delivers consistent performance across reasoning depths, with ablations confirming the effectiveness of ParSeR.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 12 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2025.

Builds on

12 of 55 references.

References · 12

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  2. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  3. 2023A Survey of Large Language Modelscited by 2,576
  4. 2023Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 2,212
  5. 2023Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Modelscited by 1,228
  6. 2024M3-Embedding: Multi-Linguality, Multi-Functionality, Multi-Granularity Text Embeddings Through Self-Knowledge Distillationcited by 1,073
  7. 2024KMMLU: Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding in Koreancited by 91
  8. 2024BM25S: Orders of magnitude faster lexical search via eager sparse scoringcited by 88
  9. 2024LegalAgentBench: Evaluating LLM Agents in Legal Domaincited by 59
  10. 2024EXAONE 3.5: Series of Large Language Models for Real-world Use Casescited by 53
  11. 2023A Short Survey of Viewing Large Language Models in Legal Aspectcited by 52
  12. 2024LexEval: A Comprehensive Chinese Legal Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Modelscited by 37

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 7.

7 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Korean Canonical Legal Benchmark: Toward Knowledge-Independent Evaluation of LLMs' Legal Reasoning Capabilities
  2. 2025Elevating Legal LLM Responses: Harnessing Trainable Logical Structures and Semantic Knowledge with Legal Reasoning
  3. 2025A Reasoning-Focused Legal Retrieval Benchmark
  4. 2025NitiBench: A Comprehensive Study of LLM Framework Capabilities for Thai Legal Question Answering
  5. 2025A Llama walks into the 'Bar': Efficient Supervised Fine-Tuning for Legal Reasoning in the Multi-state Bar Exam
  6. 2026OpenExempt: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Legal Reasoning and a Framework for Creating Custom Benchmarks on Demand
  7. 2026From Query to Counsel: Structured Reasoning with a Multi-Agent Framework and Dataset for Legal Consultation
  8. 2024Experimenting with Legal AI Solutions: The Case of Question-Answering for Access to Justice