DLawBench - Fidelity: leaderboard

DLawBench (2026) has LLMs act as lawyers in multi-turn consultations with simulated clients (cooperative, dependent, withdrawn or adversarial) over real Chinese-law and U.S.-law cases, then write a legal memo that a three-judge LLM panel scores against expert rubrics. This board is fidelity, the share of claims in the memo that the consultation actually supports. Scores are rates on a 0 to 100 scale; higher is better.

Metric: Fidelity score (0-100), a rate scaled by 100: share of factual and inferential claims in the legal memo that the consultation supports, averaged over the two jurisdictions, on 461 real Chinese-law and U.S.-law cases replayed as multi-turn consultations with a Claude Sonnet 4.6 client simulator in four narrative styles; judged by a GPT-5.1, Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro panel (median; same-vendor judges recuse), empty memos count as zero; provider decoding defaults; higher is better. Source: arxiv.org. Saturation forecast: Estimated already saturated. 26 models tracked.

Top models

#ModelScoreOverall rank
1GPT-5.494#123
2GPT-5.293.6#176
3GPT-5.593.4#49
4DeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking)89.8#406 (DeepSeek V3.2)
5Claude Sonnet 4.688.9#161
6GLM-5.188.4#179
7GLM-588#260
8Seed 2.0 Pro87.7#211
9Claude Opus 4.687.6#102
10Claude Opus 4.787.3#79
11Qwen 3.6 Max Preview87#159
12Kimi K2.686.8#178
13Qwen 3.6 Plus86.5#222
14Qwen 3.5 Plus85.9#232
15DeepSeek V4 Pro85.1#188

No result here: #1 Claude Fable 5.2, #2 Gemini 4 Carbon, #5 Claude Opus 5.5.

Interactive version: theaggregate.ai/benchmark?slug=dlawbench-fidelity · How It Works · Data refreshed daily, snapshot 2026-11-13.