Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.19427

How Do LLMs Understand Legal Philosophy? Diagnosing Legal-Philosophical Reasoning in LLMs

Shuyuan Zheng·Yun-seo Lee·Xing Gao·Jialu Wu·Jiabao Hu·Katrina Qiyao Wang·Xinbo Lin·Qianying Liu·Chuan Xiao·Tao Huang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Legal reasoning is a fundamental capability for large language models (LLMs) to complete legal AI tasks such as legal judgment prediction. In legal practice, this reasoning is shaped by legal philosophy: a judge's view of the nature and sources of law guides how legal materials are interpreted and applied, so judges working from the same statutes and precedents can reach different judgments. Existing research has largely overlooked whether LLMs can understand legal philosophy and apply it in legal reasoning, an ability we call \textit{legal-philosophical reasoning}. To fill this gap, we introduce LePhilBench, a benchmark for evaluating the legal-philosophical reasoning of LLMs that comprises two benchmarking tasks and a dataset. The two tasks evaluate how well LLMs understand legal philosophy and how well they apply it in legal reasoning, respectively. The dataset is manually and meticulously constructed. Its test set contains 220 U.S. Supreme Court opinions. A law professor designed fourteen annotation questions on legal philosophy, and three law-trained annotators with formal training in jurisprudence answered all fourteen questions for every opinion, yielding 9,240 legal-philosophical labels. LePhilBench takes the first step toward exploring legal-philosophical reasoning in LLMs.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shuyuan Zheng, Yun-seo Lee, Xing Gao, Jialu Wu, Jiabao Hu, Katrina Qiyao Wang, Xinbo Lin, Qianying Liu, Chuan Xiao, Tao Huang. 2026-10-14. How Do LLMs Understand Legal Philosophy? Diagnosing Legal-Philosophical Reasoning in LLMs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.19427

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Learning From How Humans Correct

In industry NLP application, our manually labeled data has a certain number of noisy data. We present a simple method to find the noisy data and relabel them manually, meanwhile we collect the correction information. Then we present novel method to incorporate the human correction information into deep learning model. Human know how to correct noisy data. So the correction information can be inject into deep learning model. We do the experiment on our own text classification dataset, which is manually labeled, because we need to relabel the noisy data in our dataset for our industry application. The experiment result shows that our learn-on-correction method improve the classification accuracy from 91.7% to 92.5% in test dataset. The 91.7% accuracy is trained on the corrected dataset, which improve the baseline from 83.3% to 91.7% in test dataset. The accuracy under human evaluation achieves more than 97%.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

LLMR: Knowledge Distillation with a Large Language Model-Induced Reward

Large language models have become increasingly popular and demonstrated remarkable performance in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, these models are typically computationally expensive and difficult to be deployed in resource-constrained environments. In this paper, we propose LLMR, a novel knowledge distillation (KD) method based on a reward function induced from large language models. We conducted experiments on multiple datasets in the dialogue generation and summarization tasks. Empirical results demonstrate that our LLMR approach consistently outperforms traditional KD methods in different tasks and datasets.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

C-VARC: A Large-Scale Chinese Value Rule Corpus for Value Alignment of Large Language Models

Aligning LLMs with Chinese values requires culturally grounded resources that connect abstract values to concrete behavioral guidance. We introduce C-VARC, a Chinese Value Rule Corpus containing 257,609 Rules of Thumb (RoTs) organized into three dimensions, 12 core values, and 50 derived values. Among them, 36,000 rules underwent independent human review by two annotators (Cohen's kappa>0.85), with disagreements adjudicated by a third. C-VARC supports reusable rule-driven pipelines for both value evaluation and model alignment. Compared with abstract-value guidance, RoT guidance produces greater semantic and character-level n-gram diversity. Across five non-political sensitive themes, the seven-model average selection rate for C-VARC-consistent options is at least 72.0%, while five Chinese annotators show overall rates of at least 87.5%. Conflicting RoT pairs further enable the construction of 404,505 moral dilemmas, with 7,191 of 10,998 evaluated cases eliciting cross-model disagreement. For alignment, C-VARC-Query consistently outperforms matched Value-only supervision on CMoralEval across both Qwen3-8B and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, with average gains of 2.97 and 12.82 percentage points, respectively, and positive paired gains across all three seeds for both backbones. It also improves CValues and C-Eval over Value-only supervision on both backbones. C-VARC thus provides a scalable Chinese normative resource for constructing both value-evaluation and alignment supervision.

cs.CL↗