# AR-BENCH: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning with Judgment Error Detection, Classification and Correction

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.22742 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.22742/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 5 of its 63 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Jan 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.02556/) (2025)
- [Kimi K2: Open Agentic Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.20534/) (2025)
- [CAIL2018: A Large-Scale Legal Dataset for Judgment Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.02478/) (2018)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Legal judgments may contain errors due to the complexity of case circumstances and the abstract nature of legal concepts, while existing appellate review mechanisms face efficiency pressures from a surge in case volumes. Although current legal AI research focuses on tasks like judgment prediction and legal document generation, the task of judgment review differs fundamentally in its objectives and paradigm: it centers on detecting, classifying, and correcting errors after a judgment is issued, constituting anomaly detection rather than prediction or generation. To address this research gap, we introduce a novel task APPELLATE REVIEW, aiming to assess models' diagnostic reasoning and reliability in legal practice. We also construct a novel dataset benchmark AR-BENCH, which comprises 8,700 finely annotated decisions and 34,617 supplementary corpora. By evaluating 14 large language models, we reveal critical limitations in existing models' ability to identify legal application errors, providing empirical evidence for future improvements.