Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Magis-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Magistrate-Level Legal Tasks

Summary

Magis-Bench is a new benchmark evaluating LLMs on magistrate-level legal writing tasks, derived from Brazilian judicial exams. It includes 74 questions across 8 exams (2023–2025). 23 LLMs were evaluated using an LLM-as-a-judge methodology with four frontier models. Gemini-3-Pro-Preview achieved the highest average score (6.97/10), but even top models scored below 70%, indicating judicial reasoning remains challenging for current LLMs.

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Ramon Pires, Thales Sales Almeida, Celio Larcher Junior, Giovana Bon\'as, Hugo Abonizio, Marcos Piau, Roseval Malaquias Junior, Thiago Laitz, Rodrigo Nogueira
Magis-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Magistrate-Level Legal Tasks
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[2605.08437] Magis-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Magistrate-Level Legal Tasks

[Submitted on 8 May 2026]

Title:Magis-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Magistrate-Level Legal Tasks

View a PDF of the paper titled Magis-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Magistrate-Level Legal Tasks, by Ramon Pires and 8 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Existing benchmarks for legal AI focus primarily on tasks where LLMs must produce legal arguments or documents, yet the capacity to \emph{judge} such arguments -- weighing competing claims, applying doctrine to facts, and rendering reasoned decisions -- is arguably as fundamental to a well-functioning legal system as advocacy itself. We introduce Magis-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs on magistrate-level writing tasks derived from recent Brazilian competitive examinations for judicial positions. Magis-Bench comprises 74 questions from eight examinations conducted between 2023 and 2025, including discursive legal analysis questions with multi-turn structure and practical exercises requiring the composition of complete civil and criminal judicial sentences. We evaluate 23 state-of-the-art LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge methodology with four independent frontier models as evaluators. Our results show strong inter-judge agreement (Kendall's $W = 0.984$; pairwise Kendall's $\tau \ge 0.897$), with Google's Gemini-3-Pro-Preview achieving the highest average score (6.97/10), followed by Gemini-3-Flash-Preview (6.67) and Claude-4.5-Opus (6.46). Even the best-performing models score below 70\% of the maximum, indicating that judicial-level legal reasoning and writing remain challenging for current LLMs. We release the complete benchmark, model outputs, and evaluation code to support further research on legal AI capabilities.

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Cite as: arXiv:2605.08437 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2605.08437v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.08437

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Ramon Pires [view email] [v1] Fri, 8 May 2026 20:00:14 UTC (228 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Magis-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Magistrate-Level Legal Tasks, by Ramon Pires and 8 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-05

Change to browse by:

cs cs.AI

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

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.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

InvestorsAdvanced

Key points

  • Magis-Bench comprises 74 questions from 8 Brazilian judicial exams (2023–2025), including discursive analysis and full sentence writing.
  • 23 state-of-the-art LLMs evaluated by 4 frontier models with high inter-judge agreement (Kendall's W=0.984).
  • Google's Gemini-3-Pro-Preview scored highest (6.97/10), yet all models under 70% of maximum.
  • Benchmark, model outputs, and evaluation code are publicly released to support further research.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.