arXiv preprint ·
LexPilot: Benchmarking the Proactive Interaction Ability of Legal LLMs with Laypeople in Chinese Civil Case Consultation
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have greatly assisted legal professionals. However, our empirical studies reveal that, when faced with underspecified consultations from non-experts, current LLMs often produce irresponsible responses with limited utility despite lacking sufficient case details for definitive conclusions. To better assist laypeople, legal LLMs must identify focal points of dispute and proactively elicit crucial context from users. Unfortunately, existing data resources often focus on interaction and response quality, offering limited insight into how proactive interaction affects LLMs' downstream claim-level judgment prediction in actual civil cases. To address this gap, we introduce \textbf{LexPilot}, a benchmark linking proactive legal interaction to claim-level verdict prediction using authentic Chinese civil judgments. Constructed from 432 real-world judgments across 36 common causes of action, LexPilot comprises expert-reviewed pairs of complete and underspecified consultation histories with corresponding court verdicts. Experiments reveal that current LLMs struggle with proactive legal interactions in underspecified consultations, with downstream judgment prediction substantially underperforming that in the fully specified consultation setup (-23.84% on average). Further analysis identifies critical bottlenecks hindering these capabilities. Our work highlights the urgent need for more user-centered legal AI to better serve the public.
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 Artificial Intelligence
Between Spoilers and Guesswork: Avoiding Over-Specification in Coding Benchmarks
Screening LLM Judges Without Ground Truth: A Preliminary Evaluation of an AI Dental Hygiene Coach
StoBasket: Joint Upsell and Cross-Sell Optimization for Contribution Margin
What Matters for NVFP4 Training? A Comparative Study of Low-Precision Pretraining Recipes
When Can You Trust an Agent's Own Verifier? Stress-Testing Counterfactual Rationale Verification Under Search Pressure and Oracle Access
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence 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.