Index  |  Benchmarks  |  Mathematics  |  Graph  |  About
SRCH:EEEF0D06

Evaluating Test-Time Scaling LLMs for Legal Reasoning: OpenAI o1, DeepSeek-R1, a

Submitted: 27 May 2026
Review score: 7.83/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Quality tier: DOI grade
Verified claims: 7
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20409932

Abstract

Abstract: Recent advances in test-time scaling of large language models (LLMs), exemplified by DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI's o1, show that extending the chain of thought during inference can significantly improve general reasoning performance. However, the impact of this paradigm on legal reasoning remains insufficiently explored. To address this gap, we present the first systematic evaluation of 12 LLMs, including both reasoning-focused and general-purpose models, across 17 Chinese and English legal tasks spanning statutory and case-law traditions. In addition, we curate a bilingual chain-of-thought dataset

Research Question

How does the computational cost (inference latency and FLOPs) of defending DeepSeek-R1 against token-level perturbations compare to o1-preview on legal reasoning benchmarks under synonym substitution attacks?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims7
Claim record sourcenot publicly specified

Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.

Quality Tier

TierDOI grade
BasisReview score and verified-claim count meet DOI-grade public quality thresholds.

Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.

Quality Dimensions

Evidence strength MEDIUM
Citation grounding MEDIUM
Uncertainty disclosure MEDIUM
Reproducibility status HIGH

Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.

Correction Record

StatusCURRENT
Correction count0
Manifest contractpaper-manifest-v1.1
Correction contractcorrection-record-v1

Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.

Provenance

PublisherAssignee Research
Public provenanceL4, External archival record
Report artifactAvailable
External recordRegistered
Claim lineage7 aggregate source-grounded claims
Review methodAutomated multi-reviewer assessment
Quality guideHow to read scores, claims, manifests, and evidence links
Provenance contractsource-provenance-v1
NoteMachine-generated synthesis of existing literature. Not primary research.