CHANCERY: Evaluating Corporate Governance Reasoning Capabilities in Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.04636v2
• Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 03:27:21 GMT
• Title: CHANCERY: Evaluating Corporate Governance Reasoning Capabilities in Language Models
• Abstract summary: We introduce a corporate governance reasoning benchmark (CHANCERY) to test a model's ability to reason about whether executive/board/shareholder's proposed actions are consistent with corporate governance charters.<n>The benchmark consists of a corporate charter (a set of governing covenants) and a proposal for executive action.<n> Evaluations on state-of-the-art (SOTA) reasoning models confirm the difficulty of the benchmark, with models such as Claude 3.7 Sonnet and GPT-4o achieving 64.5% and 75.2% accuracy respectively.
• Score: 30.288227578616905
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Law has long been a domain that has been popular in natural language processing (NLP) applications. Reasoning (ratiocination and the ability to make connections to precedent) is a core part of the practice of the law in the real world. Nevertheless, while multiple legal datasets exist, none have thus far focused specifically on reasoning tasks. We focus on a specific aspect of the legal landscape by introducing a corporate governance reasoning benchmark (CHANCERY) to test a model's ability to reason about whether executive/board/shareholder's proposed actions are consistent with corporate governance charters. This benchmark introduces a first-of-its-kind corporate governance reasoning test for language models - modeled after real world corporate governance law. The benchmark consists of a corporate charter (a set of governing covenants) and a proposal for executive action. The model's task is one of binary classification: reason about whether the action is consistent with the rules contained within the charter. We create the benchmark following established principles of corporate governance - 24 concrete corporate governance principles established in and 79 real life corporate charters selected to represent diverse industries from a total dataset of 10k real life corporate charters. Evaluations on state-of-the-art (SOTA) reasoning models confirm the difficulty of the benchmark, with models such as Claude 3.7 Sonnet and GPT-4o achieving 64.5% and 75.2% accuracy respectively. Reasoning agents exhibit superior performance, with agents based on the ReAct and CodeAct frameworks scoring 76.1% and 78.1% respectively, further confirming the advanced legal reasoning capabilities required to score highly on the benchmark. We also conduct an analysis of the types of questions which current reasoning models struggle on, revealing insights into the legal reasoning capabilities of SOTA models.

Related papers

• Who judges the judges? Governance from metrics: a runtime framework for continuous LLM compliance monitoring [0.0]
  Current approaches to AI compliance treat conformity as a binary, audit-time verdict.<n>We argue that this compliance fiction is structurally ill-suited to the requirements of the EU AI Act.<n>We introduce governance from metrics, a principle whereby regulatory compliance is derived as a continuous signal from behavioural observability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T21:21:33Z)
• LegalOne: A Family of Foundation Models for Reliable Legal Reasoning [54.57434222018289]
  We present LegalOne, a family of foundational models specifically tailored for the Chinese legal domain.<n>LegalOne is developed through a comprehensive three-phase pipeline designed to master legal reasoning.<n>We publicly release the LegalOne weights and the LegalKit evaluation framework to advance the field of Legal AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T10:18:32Z)
• PLawBench: A Rubric-Based Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Real-World Legal Practice [67.71760070255425]
  We introduce PLawBench, a practical benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in legal practice scenarios.<n>PLawBench comprises 850 questions across 13 practical legal scenarios, with each question accompanied by expert-designed evaluation rubrics.<n>Using an LLM-based evaluator aligned with human expert judgments, we evaluate 10 state-of-the-art LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T11:36:10Z)
• On Verifiable Legal Reasoning: A Multi-Agent Framework with Formalized Knowledge Representations [0.0]
  This paper introduces a modular multi-agent framework that decomposes legal reasoning into distinct knowledge acquisition and application stages.<n>In the first stage, specialized agents extract legal concepts and formalize rules to create verifiable intermediate representations of statutes.<n>The second stage applies this knowledge to specific cases through three steps: analyzing queries to map case facts onto the schema, performing symbolic inference to derive logically entailed conclusions, and generating final answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-31T06:03:00Z)
• ClaimGen-CN: A Large-scale Chinese Dataset for Legal Claim Generation [56.79698529022327]
  Legal claims refer to the plaintiff's demands in a case and are essential to guiding judicial reasoning and case resolution.<n>This paper explores the problem of legal claim generation based on the given case's facts.<n>We construct ClaimGen-CN, the first dataset for Chinese legal claim generation task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-24T07:19:25Z)
• RLJP: Legal Judgment Prediction via First-Order Logic Rule-enhanced with Large Language Models [58.69183479148083]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is a pivotal task in legal AI.<n>Existing LJP models integrate judicial precedents and legal knowledge for high performance.<n>But they neglect legal reasoning logic, a critical component of legal judgments requiring rigorous logical analysis.<n>This paper proposes a rule-enhanced legal judgment prediction framework based on first-order logic (FOL) formalism and comparative learning (CL)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T14:50:21Z)
• Legal Rule Induction: Towards Generalizable Principle Discovery from Analogous Judicial Precedents [39.35255423087048]
  Legal rules encompass not only codified statutes but also implicit adjudicatory principles derived from precedents that contain discretionary norms, social morality, and policy.<n>We formalize Legal Rule Induction (LRI) as the task of deriving concise, generalizable doctrinal rules from sets of analogous precedents.<n>We introduce the first LRI benchmark, comprising 5,121 case sets (38,088 Chinese cases in total) for model tuning and 216 expert-annotated gold test sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T09:10:52Z)
• A Law Reasoning Benchmark for LLM with Tree-Organized Structures including Factum Probandum, Evidence and Experiences [76.73731245899454]
  We propose a transparent law reasoning schema enriched with hierarchical factum probandum, evidence, and implicit experience.<n>Inspired by this schema, we introduce the challenging task, which takes a textual case description and outputs a hierarchical structure justifying the final decision.<n>This benchmark paves the way for transparent and accountable AI-assisted law reasoning in the Intelligent Court''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T10:26:54Z)
• AnnoCaseLaw: A Richly-Annotated Dataset For Benchmarking Explainable Legal Judgment Prediction [56.797874973414636]
  AnnoCaseLaw is a first-of-its-kind dataset of 471 meticulously annotated U.S. Appeals Court negligence cases.<n>Our dataset lays the groundwork for more human-aligned, explainable Legal Judgment Prediction models.<n>Results demonstrate that LJP remains a formidable task, with application of legal precedent proving particularly difficult.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T19:14:48Z)
• How Vital is the Jurisprudential Relevance: Law Article Intervened Legal Case Retrieval and Matching [31.378981566988063]
  Legal case retrieval (LCR) aims to automatically scour for comparable legal cases based on a given query.<n>To address them, a daunting challenge is assessing the uniquely defined legal-rational similarity within the judicial domain.<n>We propose an end-to-end model named LCM-LAI to solve the above challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T15:29:07Z)
• LegalSeg: Unlocking the Structure of Indian Legal Judgments Through Rhetorical Role Classification [6.549338652948716]
  We introduce LegalSeg, the largest annotated dataset for this task, comprising over 7,000 documents and 1.4 million sentences, labeled with 7 rhetorical roles.<n>Our results demonstrate that models incorporating broader context, structural relationships, and sequential sentence information outperform those relying solely on sentence-level features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-09T10:07:05Z)
• Three Decades of Formal Methods in Business Process Compliance: A Systematic Literature Review [0.0]
  Digitalization efforts often face a key challenge: business processes must adhere to legal regulations. This study focuses on rigorous frameworks using formal methods to verify or ensure compliance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T21:19:57Z)
• The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models [94.31327813151208]
  BiGGen Bench is a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks.<n>A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T12:30:30Z)
• Transformer-based Entity Legal Form Classification [43.75590166844617]
  We propose the application of Transformer-based language models for classifying legal forms. We employ various BERT variants and compare their performance against multiple traditional baselines. Our findings demonstrate that pre-trained BERT variants outperform traditional text classification approaches in terms of F1 score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T14:11:43Z)
• Precedent-Enhanced Legal Judgment Prediction with LLM and Domain-Model Collaboration [52.57055162778548]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) has become an increasingly crucial task in Legal AI. Precedents are the previous legal cases with similar facts, which are the basis for the judgment of the subsequent case in national legal systems. Recent advances in deep learning have enabled a variety of techniques to be used to solve the LJP task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T16:47:20Z)
• Do Charge Prediction Models Learn Legal Theory? [59.74220430434435]
  We argue that trustworthy charge prediction models should take legal theories into consideration. We propose three principles for trustworthy models should follow in this task, which are sensitive, selective, and presumption of innocence. Our findings indicate that, while existing charge prediction models meet the selective principle on a benchmark dataset, most of them are still not sensitive enough and do not satisfy the presumption of innocence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T07:32:12Z)

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.