Building from Scratch: A Multi-Agent Framework with Human-in-the-Loop for Multilingual Legal Terminology Mapping
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate
Abstract (arXiv)
Accurately mapping legal terminology across languages remains a significant challenge, especially for language pairs like Chinese and Japanese, which share a large number of homographs with different meanings. Existing resources and standardized tools for these languages are limited. To address this, we propose a human-AI collaborative approach for building a multilingual legal terminology database, based on a multi-agent framework. This approach integrates advanced large language models and legal domain experts throughout the entire process-from raw document preprocessing, article-level alignment, to terminology extraction, mapping, and quality assurance. Unlike a single automated pipeline, our approach places greater emphasis on how human experts participate in this multi-agent system. Humans and AI agents take on different roles: AI agents handle specific, repetitive tasks, such as OCR, text segmentation, semantic alignment, and initial terminology extraction, while human experts provide crucial oversight, review, and supervise the outputs with contextual knowledge and legal judgment. We tested the effectiveness of this framework using a trilingual parallel corpus comprising 35 key Chinese statutes, along with their English and Japanese translations. The experimental results show that this human-in-the-loop, multi-agent workflow not only improves the precision and consistency of multilingual legal terminology mapping but also offers greater scalability compared to traditional manual methods.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 12 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Dec 2025.
Builds on
12 of 52 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
- 2023Chatlaw: A Multi-Agent Legal Assistant based on a Role-Aligned Mixture-of-Experts Architecture28 Jun
Other references · 11
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2017Six Challenges for Neural Machine Translationcited by 334
- 2024HippoRAG: Neurobiologically Inspired Long-Term Memory for Large Language Modelscited by 273
- 2023Self-collaboration Code Generation via ChatGPTcited by 255
- 2024(Perhaps) Beyond Human Translation: Harnessing Multi-Agent Collaboration for Translating Ultra-Long Literary Textscited by 49
- 2024Natural Language Processing for the Legal Domain: A Survey of Tasks, Datasets, Models, and Challengescited by 42
- 2025Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Improving Factuality in Legal Question Answeringcited by 28
- 2023A Benchmark and Scoring Algorithm for Enriching Arabic Synonymscited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025TransLaw: A Large-Scale Dataset and Multi-Agent Benchmark Simulating Professional Translation of Hong Kong Case Law
- 2025CLaw: Benchmarking Chinese Legal Knowledge in Large Language Models - A Fine-grained Corpus and Reasoning Analysis
- 2024LawLuo: A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework for Multi-Round Chinese Legal Consultation
- 2025Benchmarking Multi-Step Legal Reasoning and Analyzing Chain-of-Thought Effects in Large Language Models
- 2023One Law, Many Languages: Benchmarking Multilingual Legal Reasoning for Judicial Support
- 2026LegalMALR:Multi-Agent Query Understanding and LLM-Based Reranking for Chinese Statute Retrieval
- 2026NyayaAI: An AI-Powered Legal Assistant Using Multi-Agent Architecture and Retrieval-Augmented Generation
- 2026LawCompass: Navigating from Legal QA to Multi-Agent Deep Research with Grounded Evidence