Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Towards Robust Legal Reasoning: Harnessing Logical LLMs in Law

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 2502.17638 v1 pith:7WSBQWVJ submitted 2025-02-24 cs.CY cs.AI

classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords legalllmsapproachcontractreasoningaccuracyanalysisclaim
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Legal services rely heavily on text processing. While large language models (LLMs) show promise, their application in legal contexts demands higher accuracy, repeatability, and transparency. Logic programs, by encoding legal concepts as structured rules and facts, offer reliable automation, but require sophisticated text extraction. We propose a neuro-symbolic approach that integrates LLMs' natural language understanding with logic-based reasoning to address these limitations. As a legal document case study, we applied neuro-symbolic AI to coverage-related queries in insurance contracts using both closed and open-source LLMs. While LLMs have improved in legal reasoning, they still lack the accuracy and consistency required for complex contract analysis. In our analysis, we tested three methodologies to evaluate whether a specific claim is covered under a contract: a vanilla LLM, an unguided approach that leverages LLMs to encode both the contract and the claim, and a guided approach that uses a framework for the LLM to encode the contract. We demonstrated the promising capabilities of LLM + Logic in the guided approach.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. LAMUS: A Large-Scale Corpus for Legal Argument Mining from U.S. Caselaw using LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LAMUS adds a roughly 2.9-million-sentence LLM-labeled corpus of U.S. Supreme Court opinions to legal argument mining, with a smaller human-verified Texas benchmark.

  2. The Consistency-Acceptability Divergence of LLMs in Judicial Decision-Making: Task and Stakeholder Dimensions

    cs.CY 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper introduces the consistency-acceptability divergence concept and proposes the DTDMR-LJGF framework for governing LLMs in judicial decision-making.

Pith tools