Shubham Kumar Nigam, Balaramamahanthi Deepak Patnaik, Noel Shallum, Kripabandhu Ghosh, Arnab Bhattacharya
Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Automating legal document drafting can improve efficiency and reduce the burden of manual legal work. Yet, the structured generation of private legal documents remains underexplored, particularly in the Indian context, due to the scarcity of public datasets and the complexity of adapting models for long-form legal drafting. To address this gap, we introduce VidhikDastaavej, a large-scale, anonymized dataset of privat ...
e legal documents curated in collaboration with an Indian law firm. Covering 133 diverse categories, this dataset is the first resource of its kind and provides a foundation for research in structured legal text generation and Legal AI more broadly. We further propose a Model-Agnostic Wrapper (MAW), a two-stage generation framework that first plans the section structure of a legal draft and then generates each section with retrieval-based prompts. MAW is independent of any specific LLM, making it adaptable across both open- and closed-source models. Comprehensive evaluation, including lexical, semantic, LLM-based, and expert-driven assessments with inter-annotator agreement, shows that the wrapper substantially improves factual accuracy, coherence, and completeness compared to fine-tuned baselines. This work establishes both a new benchmark dataset and a generalizable generation framework, paving the way for future research in AI-assisted legal drafting.
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
Automating legal document drafting can improve efficiency and reduce the burden of manual legal work.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
Retrieval / indexing
Methods
Transformer, Retrieval-augmented generation
Domains
Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models, Information Retrieval
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.