arXiv preprint ·
LegalRewardBench: Benchmarking Reward Models for Legal Preference Evaluation
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Reward models are central to preference alignment for legal tasks, yet existing reward model benchmarks are still primarily centered on general-domain preferences. In this work, we introduce LegalRewardBench, the first human-verified benchmark for evaluating reward models in the legal domain. The benchmark organizes legal preference evaluation into five capability levels: knowledge, understanding, analysis, decision, and writing, and preference examples are constructed through rubric-guided automatic judging combined with human verification. We evaluate three families of judges, covering both general and fine-tuned models, and generative and discriminative architectures. Experimental results show that strong general-purpose generative models are currently the most robust legal reward models, while existing fine-tuned reward models transfer less reliably to legal preference evaluation. We also conduct detailed comparisons of input organizations and training strategies.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
Everyone Was Right: Lexical Representations in Language Models Are Both Abstract and Holistic
TopicMerge: A Divide and Conquer Approach to Topic Modeling
Many Steps into One: Reasoning Contraction and the Limits of Safe Memory Reuse for LLM Agents
LLM-jp-4 Technical Report
Reference Wording Shapes Retrieval of Robot Task Instructions
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.