arXiv preprint ·
SoK: Grading Open-Text Legal Answers, from Law School Exams to Trustworthy Rubric Judges
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Law students are examined through open-text answers: case solutions, essays and memos that apply the law to a set of facts. Such answers are expensive to grade, human graders disagree widely on them, and large language models (LLMs) now offer to grade them at scale, both in teaching and in the benchmarks that test legal AI. This paper systematizes how open-text legal answers can be evaluated. We derive eight desiderata from educational measurement and from the law that governs exams, among them validity, reliability, reasons, credit for defensible alternative solutions, robustness to gaming and human oversight. We then compare eight evaluation paradigms against them, from unstructured human grading to LLM judges with instance-specific rubrics and pairwise comparison. Three findings stand out. A rubric written for the task is the strongest lever for agreement between an LLM judge and human graders, but the reported figures answer different questions and rarely come with the human agreement they must be read against. The central validation gap lies where examination law is most demanding: defensible alternative solutions, follow-on errors, and the examiner's correction of model judgments. And rubric-centred grading is the most auditable family, because it makes the standard, its application and the final decision checkable. From this we derive the trustworthy rubric judge: an instance rubric that credits arguments and alternative paths,evidence checked in code, probes, repeated runs, calibration against independent human grades,logging, and an examiner who reads every script. We state what each safeguard rests on, what remains to be tested, and the uses the evidence supports today.
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
TopicMerge: A Divide and Conquer Approach to Topic Modeling
Learning When to Think: Utility-Guided Adaptive Reasoning for Efficient Text Retrieval
LLM-jp-4 Technical Report
INCONVENIENT: A Benchmark to Assess LLM Generalization Capabilities from Convenience Samples
Counterfactual Gate-Support Decomposition: Separating Selection from Redistribution in Training-Data Filtering
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.