mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Validate Your Authority: Benchmarking LLMs on Multi-Label Precedent Treatment Classification

arXiv 2605.17691 ↗First posted 17 May 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 1

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

  1. 2019Neural Legal Judgment Prediction in Englishcited by 209
  2. 2021When Does Pretraining Help? Assessing Self-Supervised Learning for Law and the CaseHOLD Datasetcited by 201
  3. 2022Processing Long Legal Documents with Pre-trained Transformers: Modding LegalBERT and Longformercited by 20
  4. 2024To Aggregate or Not to Aggregate. That is the Question: A Case Study on Annotation Subjectivity in Span Predictioncited by 2
  5. 2025LegalGuardian: A Privacy-Preserving Framework for Secure Integration of Large Language Models in Legal Practicecited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.