Statutory Construction and Interpretation for Artificial Intelligence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.01186v1
• Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2025 07:10:22 GMT
• Title: Statutory Construction and Interpretation for Artificial Intelligence
• Authors: Luxi He, Nimra Nadeem, Michel Liao, Howard Chen, Danqi Chen, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Peter Henderson,
• Abstract summary: We show how different interpretations of the same rule can lead to inconsistent or unstable model behavior.<n>We propose a computational framework that mirrors two legal mechanisms.<n>Our approach offers a first step toward systematically managing interpretive ambiguity.
• Score: 19.65776192762091
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: AI systems are increasingly governed by natural language principles, yet a key challenge arising from reliance on language remains underexplored: interpretive ambiguity. As in legal systems, ambiguity arises both from how these principles are written and how they are applied. But while legal systems use institutional safeguards to manage such ambiguity, such as transparent appellate review policing interpretive constraints, AI alignment pipelines offer no comparable protections. Different interpretations of the same rule can lead to inconsistent or unstable model behavior. Drawing on legal theory, we identify key gaps in current alignment pipelines by examining how legal systems constrain ambiguity at both the rule creation and rule application steps. We then propose a computational framework that mirrors two legal mechanisms: (1) a rule refinement pipeline that minimizes interpretive disagreement by revising ambiguous rules (analogous to agency rulemaking or iterative legislative action), and (2) prompt-based interpretive constraints that reduce inconsistency in rule application (analogous to legal canons that guide judicial discretion). We evaluate our framework on a 5,000-scenario subset of the WildChat dataset and show that both interventions significantly improve judgment consistency across a panel of reasonable interpreters. Our approach offers a first step toward systematically managing interpretive ambiguity, an essential step for building more robust, law-following AI systems.

Related papers

• 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)
• 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)
• Judicial Requirements for Generative AI in Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being integrated into professional domains, yet their limitations in high-stakes fields like law remain poorly understood.<n>This paper defines the core capabilities that an AI system must possess to function as a reliable reasoning tool in judicial decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-26T09:56:26Z)
• 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)
• Two Means to an End Goal: Connecting Explainability and Contestability in the Regulation of Public Sector AI [8.626461916354874]
  We examine the intersection and implementation of explainability and contestability, and their understanding in different research communities.<n>We describe the main points of friction in the realization of both principles, including the alignment between top-down and bottom-up regulation, the assignment of responsibility, and the need for interdisciplinary collaboration.<n>We believe our contributions can inform policy-making and regulation of these core principles and enable more effective and equitable design, development, and deployment of trustworthy public AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-25T10:34:00Z)
• 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)
• RuleArena: A Benchmark for Rule-Guided Reasoning with LLMs in Real-World Scenarios [58.90106984375913]
  RuleArena is a novel and challenging benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to follow complex, real-world rules in reasoning.<n> Covering three practical domains -- airline baggage fees, NBA transactions, and tax regulations -- RuleArena assesses LLMs' proficiency in handling intricate natural language instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T06:08:46Z)
• The Artificial Intelligence Act: critical overview [0.0]
  This article provides a critical overview of the recently approved Artificial Intelligence Act. It starts by presenting the main structure, objectives, and approach of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. The text concludes that even if the overall framework can be deemed adequate and balanced, the approach is so complex that it risks defeating its own purpose.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-30T21:38:02Z)
• Social, Legal, Ethical, Empathetic, and Cultural Rules: Compilation and Reasoning (Extended Version) [8.425874385897831]
  SLEEC (social, legal, ethical, empathetic, or cultural) rules aim to facilitate the formulation, verification, and enforcement of rules AI-based and autonomous systems should obey. To enable their effective use in AI systems, it is necessary to translate these rules systematically into a formal language that supports automated reasoning. In this study, we first conduct a linguistic analysis of the SLEEC rules pattern, which justifies the translation of SLEEC rules into classical logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-15T11:23:49Z)
• Large Language Models and Explainable Law: a Hybrid Methodology [44.99833362998488]
  The paper advocates for LLMs to enhance the accessibility, usage and explainability of rule-based legal systems. A methodology is developed to explore the potential use of LLMs for translating the explanations produced by rule-based systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T14:47:20Z)
• Law to Binary Tree -- An Formal Interpretation of Legal Natural Language [3.1468624343533844]
  We propose a new approach based on legal science, specifically legal taxonomy, for representing and reasoning with legal documents. Our approach interprets the regulations in legal documents as binary trees, which facilitates legal reasoning systems to make decisions and resolve logical contradictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-16T08:26:32Z)
• Bridging between LegalRuleML and TPTP for Automated Normative Reasoning (extended version) [77.34726150561087]
  LegalRuleML is an XML-based representation framework for modeling and exchanging normative rules. The TPTP input and output formats are general-purpose standards for the interaction with automated reasoning systems. We provide a bridge between the two communities by defining a logic-pluralistic normative reasoning language based on the TPTP format.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-12T08:42:34Z)
• Transparency, Compliance, And Contestability When Code Is(n't) Law [91.85674537754346]
  Both technical security mechanisms and legal processes serve as mechanisms to deal with misbehaviour according to a set of norms. While they share general similarities, there are also clear differences in how they are defined, act, and the effect they have on subjects. This paper considers the similarities and differences between both types of mechanisms as ways of dealing with misbehaviour.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-08T18:03:07Z)

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.