LRAS: Advanced Legal Reasoning with Agentic Search

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.07296v1
• Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 08:07:35 GMT
• Title: LRAS: Advanced Legal Reasoning with Agentic Search
• Authors: Yujin Zhou, Chuxue Cao, Jinluan Yang, Lijun Wu, Conghui He, Sirui Han, Yike Guo,
• Abstract summary: Legal Reasoning with Agentic Search (LRAS) is a framework designed to transition legal LLMs from static and parametric "closed-loop thinking" to dynamic and interactive "Active Inquiry"<n>By integrating Introspective Learning and Difficulty-aware Reinforcement Learning, LRAS enables LRMs to identify knowledge boundaries and handle legal reasoning.<n> Empirical results demonstrate that LRAS outperforms state-of-the-art baselines by 8.2-32%.
• Score: 48.281150948187786
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: While Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated exceptional logical capabilities in mathematical domains, their application to the legal field remains hindered by the strict requirements for procedural rigor and adherence to legal logic. Existing legal LLMs, which rely on "closed-loop reasoning" derived solely from internal parametric knowledge, frequently suffer from lack of self-awareness regarding their knowledge boundaries, leading to confident yet incorrect conclusions. To address this challenge, we present Legal Reasoning with Agentic Search (LRAS), the first framework designed to transition legal LLMs from static and parametric "closed-loop thinking" to dynamic and interactive "Active Inquiry". By integrating Introspective Imitation Learning and Difficulty-aware Reinforcement Learning, LRAS enables LRMs to identify knowledge boundaries and handle legal reasoning complexity. Empirical results demonstrate that LRAS outperforms state-of-the-art baselines by 8.2-32\%, with the most substantial gains observed in tasks requiring deep reasoning with reliable knowledge. We will release our data and models for further exploration soon.

Related papers

• Benchmarking Multi-Step Legal Reasoning and Analyzing Chain-of-Thought Effects in Large Language Models [8.769542756426786]
  We introduce M SLR, the first Chinese multi-step legal reasoning dataset grounded in real-world judicial decision making.<n>M SLR adopts the IRAC framework (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) to model structured expert reasoning from official legal documents.<n>We design a scalable Human-LLM collaborative annotation pipeline that efficiently produces fine-grained step-level reasoning annotations.<n>Further experiments demonstrate that Self-Initiated Chain-of-Thought prompts generated by models autonomously improve reasoning coherence and quality, outperforming human-designed prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-11T08:45:29Z)
• Thinking Longer, Not Always Smarter: Evaluating LLM Capabilities in Hierarchical Legal Reasoning [11.255428720705204]
  We propose a framework that decomposes the process of identifying significant distinctions between cases into three-stage reasoning tasks.<n>Our framework models cases using factual predicates called factors, organizes them into a legal knowledge hierarchy, and defines verifiable rules for identifying distinctions.<n>We find that models consistently expend more computational resources on incorrect responses than correct ones, suggesting that "thinking longer" does not always mean "thinking smarter"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T18:15:28Z)
• GLARE: Agentic Reasoning for Legal Judgment Prediction [60.13483016810707]
  Legal judgment prediction (LJP) has become increasingly important in the legal field.<n>Existing large language models (LLMs) have significant problems of insufficient reasoning due to a lack of legal knowledge.<n>We introduce GLARE, an agentic legal reasoning framework that dynamically acquires key legal knowledge by invoking different modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T13:38:12Z)
• Elevating Legal LLM Responses: Harnessing Trainable Logical Structures and Semantic Knowledge with Legal Reasoning [19.477062052536887]
  We propose the Logical-Semantic Integration Model (LSIM), a supervised framework that bridges semantic and logical coherence.<n>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.<n>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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T19:33:07Z)
• 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)
• Assessing the Reasoning Capabilities of LLMs in the context of Evidence-based Claim Verification [22.92500697622486]
  We propose a framework designed to break down any claim paired with evidence into atomic reasoning types.<n>We use this framework to create RECV, the first claim verification benchmark, incorporating real-world claims.<n>We evaluate three state-of-the-art proprietary LLMs under multiple prompt settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T14:52:05Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)
• Concise and Organized Perception Facilitates Reasoning in Large Language Models [31.238220405009617]
  Exploiting large language models (LLMs) to tackle reasoning has garnered growing attention.<n>It still remains highly challenging to achieve satisfactory results in complex logical problems, characterized by plenty of premises within the context and requiring multi-hop reasoning.<n>In this work, we first examine the mechanism from the perspective of information flow and reveal that LLMs confront difficulties akin to human-like cognitive biases when dealing with disordered and irrelevant content in reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T04:47:49Z)
• 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)
• Exploring Self-supervised Logic-enhanced Training for Large Language Models [59.227222647741094]
  In this paper, we make the first attempt to investigate the feasibility of incorporating logical knowledge through self-supervised post-training. We devise an auto-regressive objective variant of MERIt and integrate it with two LLM series, i.e., FLAN-T5 and LLaMA, with parameter size ranging from 3 billion to 13 billion. The results on two challenging logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of LogicLLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T06:13:10Z)

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.