IndicIPR-QA1 is presented, an extractive QA benchmark for Indian IPR laws, which contains 4,462 QA pairs from 1,116 statutory contexts across seven Acts and shows that simple word matching is not enough to answer these legal questions.
Abstract
Legal Question Answering (QA) over statutory texts is a challenging task in Natural Language Processing (NLP), especially in low-resource settings with complex legal systems. It requires answers that are precise and grounded in the law. However, to the best of current knowledge, no existing extractive QA benchmark provides exact answer spans from statutory texts across all seven Indian Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Acts. This paper presents IndicIPR-QA1, an extractive QA benchmark for Indian IPR laws. The proposed dataset contains 4,462 QA pairs from 1,116 statutory contexts across seven Acts. Questions and answers are generated using GPT-4o and validated through nine automatic quality checks, single and multi-model LLM evaluations, and a 200-pair human audit. Section-level partitioning prevents source-context overlap across the training, validation, and test sets. Further analysis examines answer span length, lexical overlap, and multi-clause structure across the corpus and individual Acts. BM25 achieves a token-level F1 score of 20.21, while fine-tuned InLegalBERT reaches 85.02 under a unified sliding-window inference protocol. The large performance gap between BM25 (20.21 F1) and InLegalBERT (85.02 F1) shows that simple word matching is not enough to answer these legal questions. Performance also varies across the seven Acts, indicating substantial differences in answer-extraction performance.
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 Up to 67% of them cite law that has since been amended or repealed.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...
Pawitsapak Akarajaradwong, S. Nutanong, Chompakorn Chaksangchaichot· 0 citations
Trustworthy Legal AI requires systems that can answer legal questions while grounding their responses in authoritative sources. However, existing Vietnamese legal benchmarks provide limited coverage of real-world legal consultations. We introduce \textbf{ViLegalExpert}, a large-scale benchmark constructed from authenti...
Tien Dat Nguyen, Nghia Hieu Nguyen, A. Nguyen et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
This study presents an empirical comparative evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system performance for legal information retrieval and question answering in the context of Thai law. The main objective of this research is to analyze, evaluate, and compare the functional effectiveness of two prominent ope...
A RAG system is built on TurkLegalRAG, a Turkish legal dataset built from scratch for retrieval-augmented question answering, with a hybrid BM25 and BGE-M3 retriever fused by reciprocal rank fusion, article-level deduplication and source capping for context diversity, cross-encoder reranking, and an abstain mechanism t...
Alperen Berke Çetinkaya, Cevdet Alp Özgün, Salih Barkın Akkaya et al.· 2026 11th International Conf...· 0 citations
The application of Large Language Models (LLMs) to Thai legal question answering (QA) presents significant opportunities but faces challenges, particularly with complex legal reasoning, accurate citation, and the high cost of advanced alignment techniques. This thesis addresses these issues through a two-fold contribut...
Pawitsapak Akarajaradwong· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.