arXiv preprint ·
NitiBench+: A Temporal Thai Legal Question Answering Benchmark Across 17 Domains
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Law changes over time. A court decides a case under the law in force on that day, and legal QA benchmarks grade answers against today's law. We checked 156,650 decisions of four Thai courts. Up to 67% of them cite law that has since been amended or repealed. We introduce NitiBench+, the sequel of our NitiBench, a Thai legal QA benchmark with 1,670 items across 17 domains, built from decisions of three courts. For each cited section it holds both the text in force on the decision date and the current text, and its retrieval corpus holds every dated version of every Thai statute section. Answers are graded on the Thai Bar Council rubric, the Bar-standard score, and on the overlap between the cited sections and the court's. The report has two parts. Part I measures the cost of the wrong text on 13 open-weight models. Reading the current text of amended law drops the Bar-standard score by 0.25 and missing repealed law drops it by 0.79. The penalty comes from rule changes, 0.45 on the 428 rule-changed items and none on the 331 wording-only items, and Citation F1 does not see it. The text in force is the fair setting. Part II benchmarks today's models on that setting. A public leaderboard ranks 26 models on a held-out test split of 500 items stratified by domain, with a validation split of the same shape released for public use, from memory alone, with the court's sections provided, and as a retrieval agent over the law in force, with the cost per item and the hallucinated citations. The best model scores 7.78 out of 10 and the best open-weight model 6.39. Without a search tool only five open-weight models recall any Thai law, and with it twenty of the 26 models gain and six lose. Leaderboard will take new models as they are released. Legal benchmarks must track dates, and on the right text today's models still leave a wide gap on Thai law.
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
GRIPS: An Empirical Study of Pre-SQL Grounding Information for SQL Generation
Swapping the Judge Changes the Ranking: A Preregistered Study of Cross-Provider Replication in LLM-Judged System Comparisons
A Capitulation Direction Emerges With Scale and Is Causally Load-Bearing Where Validation Is Strong: Eight Models, Two Families, and Five Measurement Hazards
Same Rule, Different Verdicts: Rubric Language and Clause Structure in LLM Judges for Korean Support Dialogues
Accessed, never disclosed: Silent access to protected health information by medical artificial intelligence agents
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.