# LexRubric: A Rubric-Guided Diagnostic Benchmark for Open-Ended Legal Tasks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09389 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.09389/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 21 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 21 of 21)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GLM-5: from Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15763/) (2026)
- [HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Health](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.08775/) (2025)
- [Rubrics as Rewards: Reinforcement Learning Beyond Verifiable Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.17746/) (2025)
- [LexGLUE: A Benchmark Dataset for Legal Language Understanding in English](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.00976/) (2021)
- [CUAD: An Expert-Annotated NLP Dataset for Legal Contract Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.06268/) (2021)
- [When Does Pretraining Help? Assessing Self-Supervised Learning for Law and the CaseHOLD Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08671/) (2021)
- [Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20362/) (2024)
- [CAIL2018: A Large-Scale Legal Dataset for Judgment Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.02478/) (2018)
- [SaulLM-7B: A pioneering Large Language Model for Law](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.03883/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models in Law: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.03718/) (2023)
- [DISC-LawLLM: Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Intelligent Legal Services](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.11325/) (2023)
- [LegalBench-RAG: A Benchmark for Retrieval-Augmented Generation in the Legal Domain](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.10343/) (2024)
- [JEC-QA: A Legal-Domain Question Answering Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.12011/) (2019)
- [LegalAgentBench: Evaluating LLM Agents in Legal Domain](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.17259/) (2024)
- [SaulLM-54B & SaulLM-141B: Scaling Up Domain Adaptation for the Legal Domain](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.19584/) (2024)
- [LeCaRDv2: A Large-Scale Chinese Legal Case Retrieval Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17609/) (2023)
- [LawLLM: Law Large Language Model for the US Legal System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21065/) (2024)
- [LEVEN: A Large-Scale Chinese Legal Event Detection Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.08556/) (2022)
- [LexRAG: Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Multi-Turn Legal Consultation Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.20640/) (2025)
- [CaseGen: A Benchmark for Multi-Stage Legal Case Documents Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.17943/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [GenRubric: Self-Evolving Rubric Generation for Scalable LLM Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.29856/) (2026)
- [SoK: Grading Open-Text Legal Answers, from Law School Exams to Trustworthy Rubric Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.19992/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to real-world legal tasks, evaluating the reliability of their open-ended legal responses has become essential. These tasks require context-sensitive answers and allow little room for error, motivating fine-grained and diagnostic evaluation that can identify specific sources of response quality failures. We introduce LexRubric, a rubric-based benchmark for evaluating open-ended Chinese legal tasks. LexRubric contains 649 instances from legal consultation and judicial examination, which reflect both everyday legal needs and professional legal reasoning and cover 14 legal scenarios. It further includes 12,337 expert-written atomic scoring criteria organized under a unified six-dimensional framework, enabling accurate evaluation and diagnostic analysis across tasks and evaluation dimensions. To validate the reliability of the evaluation, we test multiple judge models and compare model-based judgments with human judgments. We further evaluate 18 recent general and legal-domain LLMs on LexRubric. Results show that different models exhibit distinct capability profiles, and that open-ended legal tasks remain challenging for current LLMs. Data is available at: https://github.com/foggpoy/LexRubric.