Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

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

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2005.05257 v3 pith:VM5NITPM submitted 2020-05-11 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords languagereasoningstatutorynaturalmachinereadingapplicationcase
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 8 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Reasoning Consensus: Structural Ensembling of LLM Reasoning via Weighted DAG Aggregation

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Combining multiple LLMs' reasoning traces into weighted DAGs gives an auditable consensus graph that matches self-consistency and modestly improves on majority voting.

  2. From Judgments to Issues: Structured Extraction of Legal Reasoning with Citation-Hallucination Control

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A cost-efficient DeepSeek-V3 pipeline extracts IRAC-grounded issue-level XML from ~330k Italian tax judgments and cuts citation hallucinations from 11.7% to 0.9% via Linkoln matching, validated by two tax-law PhDs on ...

  3. AILQA: Evaluating AI-Driven Legal Question Answering Systems for the Indian Legal System

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    RAG with top-3 chunk retrieval lifts smaller LLMs on Indian legal QA (Llama2-70B: 45.7% to 51.7% on AIBE) but often hurts large models, and under the study's own rating protocol some AI answers outscored the reference...

Pith tools