aiqbench analysis
This paper introduces a specialized benchmark dataset derived from German Federal Constitutional Court rulings to evaluate how well LLMs can classify legal interpretive canons at the sentence level. The study finds that while grammatical interpretations are relatively easy for models to identify, systematic interpretation remains difficult, and optimized prompts do not consistently outperform expert-written ones in this specific domain.
Classifying Interpretive Canons at the Sentence Level: A Benchmark from the German Federal Constitutional Court
arXiv:2609.26945v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Judicial reasoning remains challenging for large language models (LLMs) to analyze. This paper contributes a sentence-level benchmark for evaluating the ability of LLMs to classify interpretive canons as articulated by Larenz in the tradition of Savigny. Our contributions are threefold. First, we operationalize this conception of interpretation as classification criteria. Second, we provide a dataset of decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court annotated at the sentence level. Third, we report baseline evaluations of four LLMs from three model families under expert hand-written prompts, compared against prompts optimized with Genetic-Pareto (GEPA). Mean F1 over the seven binary subtasks clusters between 70.4 and 79.2 across models, with grammatical interpretation usually the easiest canon to identify and systematic interpretation usually the hardest; under the tested configuration, GEPA-optimized prompts do not systematically outperform the hand-written ones, suggesting that the expert prompts provide a meaningful baseline.
Abstract:Judicial reasoning remains challenging for large language models (LLMs) to analyze. This paper contributes a sentence-level benchmark for evaluating the ability of LLMs to classify interpretive canons as articulated by Larenz in the tradition of Savigny. Our contributions are threefold. First, we operationalize this conception of interpretation as classification criteria. Second, we provide a dataset of decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court annotated at the sentence level. Third, we report baseline evaluations of four LLMs from three model families under expert hand-written prompts, compared against prompts optimized with Genetic-Pareto (GEPA). Mean F1 over the seven binary subtasks clusters between 70.4 and 79.2 across models, with grammatical interpretation usually the easiest canon to identify and systematic interpretation usually the hardest; under the tested configuration, GEPA-optimized prompts do not systematically outperform the hand-written ones, suggesting that the expert prompts provide a meaningful baseline.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computers and Society (cs.CY)
arXiv:2609.26945 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.26945v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.26945 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 241 words
Related coverage

What We're Up Against: An AI Safety Crash Course
LessWrong · Sep 24, 2026

Claude Code’s Next Era — Thariq Shihipar, Anthropic
Latent Space · Sep 29, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 18, 2026
[AINews] AI Engineer NYC: Gemini 4 Argon, Vals AI Benchmarks
Latent Space · Oct 14, 2026