Language Model Interpretability and Empirical Legal Studies
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) now perform extremely well on many natural language processing tasks. Their ability to convert legal texts to data may offer empirical legal studies (ELS) scholars a low-cost alternative to research assistants in many contexts. However, less complex computational language models, such as topic modeling and sentiment analysis, are more interpretable than LLMs. In this paper we highlight these differences by comparing LLMs with less complex models on three ELS-related tasks. Our findings suggest that ELS research will – for the time being – benefit from combining LLMs with other techniques to optimize the strengths of each approach.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
LLMs are increasingly being used to augment legal practice, education, and research.
“LLMs are increasingly being used to augment legal practice, education, and research”
From Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Livermore, Herron, and Rockmore 2024
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models
Dahl, M., Magesh, V., Suzgun, M., & Ho, D. E. (2024) · Journal of Legal Analysis · doi:10.1093/jla/laae003 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
Modeling Legal Reasoning: LM Annotation at the Edge of Human Agreement
Thalken, R., Stiglitz, E., Mimno, D., & Wilkens, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.575 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Livermore, M. A., Herron, F., & Rockmore, D. N.
- Venue
- Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics
- Publisher
- Mohr Siebeck
- Published
- 2024
- Volume
- 180
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 244-276
- ISSN
- 0044-2550 (ISSN-L)
- 0932-4569
- OpenAlex
- W4400926486
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 16.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- large language models, model interpretability, empirical legal research, topic modeling, sentiment analysis, research assistants, legal text analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review