Validate Your Authority: Benchmarking LLMs on Multi-Label Precedent Treatment Classification
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Automating the classification of negative treatment in legal precedent is a critical yet nuanced NLP task where misclassification carries significant risk. To address the shortcomings of standard accuracy, this paper introduces a more robust evaluation framework. We benchmark modern Large Language Models on a new, expert-annotated dataset of 239 real-world legal citations and propose a novel Average Severity Error metric to better measure the practical impact of classification errors. Our experiments reveal a performance split. Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash achieved the highest accuracy on a high-level classification task (79.1%), while OpenAI's GPT-5-mini was the top performer on the more complex fine-grained schema (67.7%). This work establishes a crucial baseline, provides a new context-rich dataset, and introduces an evaluation metric tailored to the demands of this complex legal reasoning task.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 May 2026.
Builds on
5 of 22 references.
References · 5
- 2019Neural Legal Judgment Prediction in Englishcited by 209
- 2021When Does Pretraining Help? Assessing Self-Supervised Learning for Law and the CaseHOLD Datasetcited by 201
- 2022Processing Long Legal Documents with Pre-trained Transformers: Modding LegalBERT and Longformercited by 20
- 2024To Aggregate or Not to Aggregate. That is the Question: A Case Study on Annotation Subjectivity in Span Predictioncited by 2
- 2025LegalGuardian: A Privacy-Preserving Framework for Secure Integration of Large Language Models in Legal Practicecited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.