On Verifiable Legal Reasoning: A Multi-Agent Framework with Formalized Knowledge Representations
Legal reasoning requires both precise interpretation of statutory language and consistent application of complex rules, presenting significant challenges for AI systems. This paper introduces a modular multi-agent framework that decomposes legal reasoning into distinct knowledge acquisition and application stages. In the first stage, specialized agents extract legal concepts and formalize rules to create verifiable intermediate representations of statutes. The second stage applies this knowledge to specific cases through three steps: analyzing queries to map case facts onto the ontology schema, performing symbolic inference to derive logically entailed conclusions, and generating final answers using a programmatic implementation that operationalizes the ontological knowledge. This bridging of natural language understanding with symbolic reasoning provides explicit and verifiable inspection points, significantly enhancing transparency compared to end-to-end approaches. Evaluation on statutory tax calculation tasks demonstrates substantial improvements, with foundational models achieving 76.4\% accuracy compared to 18.8\% baseline performance, effectively narrowing the performance gap between reasoning and foundational models. These findings suggest that modular architectures with formalized knowledge representations can make sophisticated legal reasoning more accessible through computationally efficient models while enhancing consistency and explainability in AI legal reasoning, establishing a foundation for future research into more transparent, trustworthy, and effective AI systems for legal domain.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Natural Language UnderstandingLegal ReasoningSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
VERDICT: Verifiable Evolving Reasoning with Directive-Informed Collegial Teams for Legal Judgment Prediction
Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) predicts applicable law articles, charges, and penalty terms from case facts. Beyond accuracy, LJP calls for intrinsically interpretable and legally grounded reasoning that can reconcile s…
Continual LearningTowards Trustworthy Legal AI through LLM Agents and Formal Reasoning
Legal decisions should be logical and based on statutory laws. While large language models(LLMs) are good at understanding legal text, they cannot provide verifiable justifications. We present L4L, a solver-centric frame…
Legal ReasoningAdaptive Collaboration of Arena-Based Argumentative LLMs for Explainable and Contestable Legal Reasoning
Legal reasoning requires not only high accuracy but also the ability to justify decisions through verifiable and contestable arguments. However, existing Large Language Model (LLM) approaches, such as Chain-of-Thought (C…
Legal ReasoningSAMVAD: A Multi-Agent System for Simulating Judicial Deliberation Dynamics in India
Understanding the complexities of judicial deliberation is crucial for assessing the efficacy and fairness of a justice system. However, empirical studies of judicial panels are constrained by significant ethical and pra…
Legal ReasoningCan Large Language Models Grasp Legal Theories? Enhance Legal Reasoning with Insights from Multi-Agent Collaboration
Large Language Models (LLMs) could struggle to fully understand legal theories and perform complex legal reasoning tasks. In this study, we introduce a challenging task (confusing charge prediction) to better evaluate LL…
Legal Reasoning