Exploring the Effectiveness of Prompt Engineering for Legal Reasoning Tasks
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".