DAR: Deontic Reasoning with Agentic Harnesses

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05009v1
• Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2026 15:29:38 GMT
• Title: DAR: Deontic Reasoning with Agentic Harnesses
• Abstract summary: We introduce Deontic Agentic Reasoning (DAR), an agentic reasoning setup in which the model interacts with the statutes on demand.<n>We evaluate DAR under multiple harnesses on hard subsets of DeonticBench.
• Score: 48.798309189058614
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Deontic reasoning is the task of answering questions by applying explicit rules and policies to case-specific facts, for example computing tax liability under a statute or determining the outcome of an immigration appeal. A key technical challenge for LLM-based deontic reasoning is that the relevant ruleset can be long and cross-referenced, so models may still fail to locate the rules needed for a particular reasoning step. We introduce Deontic Agentic Reasoning (DAR), an agentic reasoning setup in which the model interacts with the statutes on demand. We evaluate DAR under multiple harnesses on hard subsets of DeonticBench. Across these settings, we find that agentic harnesses can push the frontier on deontic reasoning tasks, but improvements are not uniform: weaker models often degrade on numerical tasks while consuming far more tokens.

Related papers

• DeonticBench: A Benchmark for Reasoning over Rules [52.69517904415795]
  DEONTICBENCH is a benchmark of 6,232 tasks across U.S. federal taxes, airline baggage policies, U.S. immigration administration, and U.S. state housing law.<n>It is a benchmark for studying context-grounded rule reasoning in real-world domains under both symbolic and non-symbolic settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T05:41:02Z)
• Towards Generalizable Reasoning: Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization for LLM Reasoning [50.352417879912515]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at complex tasks with advances in reasoning capabilities.<n>We propose Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization to explicitly train LLMs to learn generalizable reasoning patterns.<n>We then construct token-level advantages from this reward and optimize the policy, encouraging LLMs to favor reasoning patterns that are process-valid and counterfactually robust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T08:03:11Z)
• LRAS: Advanced Legal Reasoning with Agentic Search [48.281150948187786]
  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%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T08:07:35Z)
• 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)
• GSM-Agent: Understanding Agentic Reasoning Using Controllable Environments [56.007498767771075]
  GSM-Agent is a novel benchmark for evaluating agentic reasoning in complex environments.<n>We analyze the agentic reasoning patterns by cluster the environment's document embeddings into nodes, and map each tool call to its nearest node.<n>We propose a tool-augmented test-time scaling method to improve LLM's agentic reasoning performance by adding tools to encourage models to revisit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T07:24:37Z)
• 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)
• Can LLMs Reason with Rules? Logic Scaffolding for Stress-Testing and Improving LLMs [87.34281749422756]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive human-like performance across various reasoning tasks. However, their mastery of underlying inferential rules still falls short of human capabilities. We propose a logic scaffolding inferential rule generation framework, to construct an inferential rule base, ULogic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:38:51Z)
• DAReN: A Collaborative Approach Towards Reasoning And Disentangling [27.50150027974947]
  We propose an end-to-end joint representation-reasoning learning framework, which leverages a weak form of inductive bias to improve both tasks together. We accomplish this using a novel learning framework Disentangling based Abstract Reasoning Network (DAReN) based on the principles of GM-RPM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-27T16:10:30Z)

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.