Elevating Legal LLM Responses: Harnessing Trainable Logical Structures and Semantic Knowledge with Legal Reasoning
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07912v1
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 19:33:07 GMT
- Title: Elevating Legal LLM Responses: Harnessing Trainable Logical Structures and Semantic Knowledge with Legal Reasoning
- Authors: Rujing Yao, Yang Wu, Chenghao Wang, Jingwei Xiong, Fang Wang, Xiaozhong Liu,
- Abstract summary: We propose the Logical-Semantic Integration Model (LSIM), a supervised framework that bridges semantic and logical coherence.
LSIM comprises three components: reinforcement learning predicts a structured fact-rule chain for each question, a trainable Deep Structured Semantic Model (DSSM) retrieves the most relevant candidate questions and in-answer learning generates the final answer.
Our experiments on a real-world legal dataset QA-validated through both automated metrics and human evaluation-demonstrate that LSIM significantly enhances accuracy and reliability compared to existing methods.
- Score: 19.477062052536887
- License:
- Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved impressive results across numerous domains, yet they experience notable deficiencies in legal question-answering tasks. LLMs often generate generalized responses that lack the logical specificity required for expert legal advice and are prone to hallucination, providing answers that appear correct but are unreliable. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) techniques offer partial solutions to address this challenge, but existing approaches typically focus only on semantic similarity, neglecting the logical structure essential to legal reasoning. In this paper, we propose the Logical-Semantic Integration Model (LSIM), a novel supervised framework that bridges semantic and logical coherence. LSIM comprises three components: reinforcement learning predicts a structured fact-rule chain for each question, a trainable Deep Structured Semantic Model (DSSM) retrieves the most relevant candidate questions by integrating semantic and logical features, and in-context learning generates the final answer using the retrieved content. Our experiments on a real-world legal QA dataset-validated through both automated metrics and human evaluation-demonstrate that LSIM significantly enhances accuracy and reliability compared to existing methods.
Related papers
- ARR: Question Answering with Large Language Models via Analyzing, Retrieving, and Reasoning [22.825527641316192]
Large language models (LLMs) achieve remarkable performance on challenging benchmarks that are structured as multiple-choice question-answering (QA) tasks.
This paper introduces ARR, an intuitive and effective zero-shot prompting method that explicitly incorporates three key steps in QA solving: analyzing the intent of the question, retrieving relevant information, and reasoning step by step.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-07T06:30:33Z) - Make LLMs better zero-shot reasoners: Structure-orientated autonomous reasoning [52.83539473110143]
We introduce a novel structure-oriented analysis method to help Large Language Models (LLMs) better understand a question.
To further improve the reliability in complex question-answering tasks, we propose a multi-agent reasoning system, Structure-oriented Autonomous Reasoning Agents (SARA)
Extensive experiments verify the effectiveness of the proposed reasoning system. Surprisingly, in some cases, the system even surpasses few-shot methods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-18T05:30:33Z) - Proof of Thought : Neurosymbolic Program Synthesis allows Robust and Interpretable Reasoning [1.3003982724617653]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, yet they struggle with inconsistent reasoning.
This research introduces Proof of Thought, a framework that enhances the reliability and transparency of LLM outputs.
Key contributions include a robust type system with sort management for enhanced logical integrity, explicit representation of rules for clear distinction between factual and inferential knowledge.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-25T18:35:45Z) - CLR-Fact: Evaluating the Complex Logical Reasoning Capability of Large Language Models over Factual Knowledge [44.59258397967782]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various natural language processing tasks.
We present a systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs' complex logical reasoning abilities.
We find that LLMs excel at reasoning over general world knowledge but face significant challenges with specialized domain-specific knowledge.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-30T05:40:32Z) - Crafting Interpretable Embeddings by Asking LLMs Questions [89.49960984640363]
Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly improved text embeddings for a growing array of natural-language processing tasks.
We introduce question-answering embeddings (QA-Emb), embeddings where each feature represents an answer to a yes/no question asked to an LLM.
We use QA-Emb to flexibly generate interpretable models for predicting fMRI voxel responses to language stimuli.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-26T22:30:29Z) - LLM Reasoners: New Evaluation, Library, and Analysis of Step-by-Step Reasoning with Large Language Models [25.537725151112387]
We introduce AutoRace for fully automated reasoning chain evaluation.
We also develop LLM Reasoners, a library for standardized modular implementation of existing and new reasoning algorithms.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-08T06:35:09Z) - Adaptive-RAG: Learning to Adapt Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models through Question Complexity [59.57065228857247]
Retrieval-augmented Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a promising approach to enhancing response accuracy in several tasks, such as Question-Answering (QA)
We propose a novel adaptive QA framework, that can dynamically select the most suitable strategy for (retrieval-augmented) LLMs based on the query complexity.
We validate our model on a set of open-domain QA datasets, covering multiple query complexities, and show that ours enhances the overall efficiency and accuracy of QA systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-21T13:52:30Z) - Puzzle Solving using Reasoning of Large Language Models: A Survey [1.9939549451457024]
This survey examines the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in puzzle solving.
Our findings highlight the disparity between LLM capabilities and human-like reasoning.
The survey underscores the necessity for novel strategies and richer datasets to advance LLMs' puzzle-solving proficiency.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-17T14:19:38Z) - LaRS: Latent Reasoning Skills for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [61.7853049843921]
Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is a popular in-context learning approach for large language models (LLMs)
This paper introduces a new approach named Latent Reasoning Skills (LaRS) that employs unsupervised learning to create a latent space representation of rationales.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-07T20:36:10Z) - Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems.
LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning.
We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z) - elBERto: Self-supervised Commonsense Learning for Question Answering [131.51059870970616]
We propose a Self-supervised Bidirectional Representation Learning of Commonsense framework, which is compatible with off-the-shelf QA model architectures.
The framework comprises five self-supervised tasks to force the model to fully exploit the additional training signals from contexts containing rich commonsense.
elBERto achieves substantial improvements on out-of-paragraph and no-effect questions where simple lexical similarity comparison does not help.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-03-17T16:23:45Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.