Exploring the Effectiveness of Prompt Engineering for Legal Reasoning Tasks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of large language models (LLMs) for zero- or few-shot prompting in natural language processing has given rise to a new research area known as prompt engineering, which shows promising improvement in tasks such as arithmetic and common-sense reasoning. This paper explores the use of such approaches in legal reasoning tasks by conducting experiments on the COLIEE entailment task, which is based on the Japanese Bar exam. We further evaluate zero-shot/few-shot and fine-tuning approaches with and without explanations, alongside various prompting strategies. Our results indicate that while these techniques can improve general performance, the best results are achieved with prompts derived from specific legal reasoning techniques, such as IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion). In addition, we observe that few-shot learning with demonstrations derived from clustering past training data consistently yields high performance on the most recent COLIEE entailment tasks. Through our experiments, we improve the previous best result on the 2021 COLIEE task from 0.7037 to 0.8025 and surpass the best system from 2022 with an accuracy of 0.789.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it