BigLaw Bench

From GM-RKB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A BigLaw Bench is a legal AI benchmark (evaluates legal AIs on complex, real-world legal tasks).

  • Context:
    • It can (typically) developed by the Harvey.ai's legal research team.
    • It can (typically) use tasks derived from real legal time entries, representing billable legal work performed by lawyers.
    • It can (typically) evaluate Legal Answer Quality by assessing the extent to which the LLM produces a lawyer-quality work product, accounting for both positive achievements and negative errors.
    • It can (typically) assess Source Reliability by measuring the LLM's ability to provide accurate and verifiable legal references to support its assertions.
    • It can (typically) measure the performance of Legal AI Systems on tasks like Document Drafting, Legal Reasoning, and Risk Assessment.
    • It can (often) be used to test AIs against actual billable work done by lawyers, such as Transactional Tasks and Litigation Tasks.
    • It can (often) focus on assessing tasks that mirror actual billable work performed by lawyers, such as risk assessment, legal document drafting, and client advisory.
    • It can (often) focus on both transactional and litigation tasks, covering different legal practice areas and the nature of legal matters.
    • It can (often) be used by law firms and AI developers to fine-tune LLMs for legal tasks, improving their real-world utility and reducing errors like hallucination.
    • ...
    • It can range from evaluating simpler drafting tasks to assessing complex risk assessments requiring nuanced legal knowledge and accurate citations.
    • ...
    • It can employ custom legal rubrics to evaluate LLM performance, considering factors like task completion, professional tone, legal relevance, and common failure modes such as hallucinations.
    • It can measure performance through two main metrics: Answer Quality and Source Reliability.
    • It can supplement traditional legal AI benchmarks, which may focus on multiple-choice legal exams, by introducing tasks that mirror real legal work.
    • It can help identify areas where LLMs excel, such as legal drafting tasks, while highlighting weaknesses in tasks requiring deep legal reasoning and accurate sourcing.
    • It can include a variety of task types within transactional and litigation domains, offering a comprehensive assessment of LLM capabilities in legal practice.
    • It can provide insights into the capacity of public LLMs to generate high-quality legal content but with challenges in providing reliable sourcing.
    • It can help benchmark models for specific legal domains, such as Corporate Law, Intellectual Property Law, and Contract Law.
    • It can utilize metrics like the Answer Score and Source Score to measure the completeness and verifiability of a model's outputs in comparison to lawyer-quality work.
    • ...
  • Example(s):
    • ... ? draft a confidentiality clause for a merger agreement, evaluated on completeness, legal accuracy, and appropriateness for the client’s needs.
    • ... ? perform a risk assessment for a client’s proposed business action, requiring identification of relevant laws and regulations with proper citations.
    • ...
  • Counter-Example(s):
    • LegalBench, a comprehensive benchmark featuring tasks across legal domains, testing the ability of LLMs to perform IRAC-style reasoning and practical legal applications like contract clause identification.
    • CUAD (Contract Understanding Atticus Dataset), a benchmark focused on AI's ability to classify and extract legal clauses from contracts, important for transactional law.
    • Rule QA Task, a subtask within LegalBench that evaluates how accurately LLMs answer questions about specific legal rules.
  • See: Legal AI Systems, Transactional Tasks, Litigation Tasks, Legal Research Tools.


References

2024

2024


Categoy:Quality Silver