pith. sign in

arxiv: 2005.05257 · v3 · pith:VM5NITPMnew · submitted 2020-05-11 · 💻 cs.CL

A Dataset for Statutory Reasoning in Tax Law Entailment and Question Answering

classification 💻 cs.CL
keywords languagereasoningstatutorynaturalmachinereadingapplicationcase
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Legislation can be viewed as a body of prescriptive rules expressed in natural language. The application of legislation to facts of a case we refer to as statutory reasoning, where those facts are also expressed in natural language. Computational statutory reasoning is distinct from most existing work in machine reading, in that much of the information needed for deciding a case is declared exactly once (a law), while the information needed in much of machine reading tends to be learned through distributional language statistics. To investigate the performance of natural language understanding approaches on statutory reasoning, we introduce a dataset, together with a legal-domain text corpus. Straightforward application of machine reading models exhibits low out-of-the-box performance on our questions, whether or not they have been fine-tuned to the legal domain. We contrast this with a hand-constructed Prolog-based system, designed to fully solve the task. These experiments support a discussion of the challenges facing statutory reasoning moving forward, which we argue is an interesting real-world task that can motivate the development of models able to utilize prescriptive rules specified in natural language.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Learning When Not to Decide: A Framework for Overcoming Factual Presumptuousness in AI Adjudication

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A new structured prompting method (SPEC) helps AI detect insufficient evidence in adjudication tasks and defer decisions appropriately, reaching 89% accuracy on a benchmark varying information completeness from Colora...

  2. From Statute to Control Flow: Span-Grounded Deontic Trees for Defeasible Scope Parsing

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Introduces NormBench benchmark and Span-Grounded Deontic Trees (SG-DT) for defeasible scope parsing to reduce Silent Scope Omission in LLMs on statutes and policies.

  3. LP-Eval: Rubric and Dataset for Measuring the Quality of Legal Proposition Generation

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LP-Eval is a new expert-co-designed rubric and annotated dataset showing that LLMs mostly produce well-formed legal propositions from EU court decisions, with higher expert-rated quality for established cases and impr...

  4. Know Your Limits : On the Faithfulness of LLMs as Solvers and Autoformalizers in Legal Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Formal structure boosts LLM accuracy on legal entailment but does not produce faithful reasoning, with scope laundering and other failures persisting across models on ContractNLI.