When Can a Machine Trust a Statute? A Survival Certificate for Machine-Extracted Legal Logic

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.01741v1
• Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2026 18:08:01 GMT
• Title: When Can a Machine Trust a Statute? A Survival Certificate for Machine-Extracted Legal Logic
• Abstract summary: On 29,365 Missouri sections and 502 Indian central-Act sections, the preregistered held-out gate passes (10 statute families across 7 Titles exact; 16 across 11 with 5% tolerance), yet under one globally deployed error model 93.2% of held-out chapters fall below the informativeness floor.<n>We build a passive survival certificate for the Duquenne-Guigues implication basis of machine-extracted statutory contexts.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Statutes are increasingly parsed by machines before people read them, and the parsers disagree: on Missouri's statutes, two independently written extractors diverge on numeric-threshold presence at a false-negative rate of 0.43. We ask what formal logic survives such noise. We build a passive survival certificate for the Duquenne-Guigues implication basis of machine-extracted statutory contexts: per-attribute inter-extractor disagreement is measured, replayed against the basis in 1,000 Monte Carlo trials, and an implication is certified only when a one-sided Wilson 95% lower bound on survival reaches 0.95; every certified implication carries premise spans and a minimal counterexample. On 29,365 Missouri sections and 502 Indian central-Act sections, the preregistered held-out gate passes (10 statute families across 7 Titles exact; 16 across 11 with 5% tolerance), yet under one globally deployed error model 93.2% of held-out chapters fall below the informativeness floor, and a 2x2 factorial assigns that to calibration-rate transfer, not selection. The certificate is usable but fragile: deploy it per-chapter-calibrated or error-tolerant. Code, data products, and the audit trail, including one retracted claim, are released.

Related papers

• VeriPhy: Agentic Physical Reasoning for World Model Evaluation and Refinement [57.86962208273888]
  We present an auditable physical-verification system in which a text-only planner compiles the prompt into typed physical obligations.<n>Each action returns a provenance-carrying evidence record whose payload, when usable, is either a typed measurement or an explicitly tagged learned state.<n>We anchor evaluation in a 1,500-clip corpus of human-annotated flaw records that localize real generation failures in prompt reference, space, and time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-02T20:36:45Z)
• MaliciousSkillBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Malicious Agent Skill Detection [24.37473229751569]
  MaliciousSkillBench is a comprehensive benchmark for malicious Agent Skill detection.<n>We consolidate 13 public sources, 11 of which contribute Core malicious artifacts, and reduce 8,414 raw malicious records to 7,539 normalized-unique identities.<n>We then evaluate three learned text detectors and three off-the-shelf Skill scanners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-20T11:13:00Z)
• Agent Behavioral Contracts II: Certifying Compositional Reliability Without Assuming Independence [0.0]
  Two instances of one model, in a two-agent handoff, co-fail on 90.0% of the missions on which either fails.<n>Substituting a different model reduces the association in six of six contrasts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-13T07:25:05Z)
• Judging Is Not Enumerating: Silent Omissions in LLM-Authored Acceptable Sets [13.85834524293015]
  We measure the capability that role assumes and find it lacking under the protocol the role is usually deployed with.<n>Models judge whether a candidate belongs far better than they author the set itself.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-02T05:00:44Z)
• Auditable Release Control for Pedagogical Leakage in LLM Tutors [0.0]
  Large language model tutors can be correct and helpful yet disclose an answer or decisive reasoning before that disclosure is authorized.<n>We formalize this state- and action-dependent failure as pedagogical leakage-aware authorization and introduce complete-mediation boundary.<n>A global A1 yields 0 majority and 54 any-utility flags, outperforming fitted Q on automatic safety and utility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-01T08:24:30Z)
• Looping Is Not Reliability: State-Bound Evidence and Typed Revision Contracts for Agentic Code Repair [36.56438114281786]
  We study the gap between finding a correct patch and retaining, verifying, and submitting it.<n>We derive an evidence-bound typed loop contract and instantiate its mechanically enforceable subset in a reference implementation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T16:05:23Z)
• Has This Checkpoint Been Abliterated? A Two-Signal Audit and Its Failure Map [0.676855875213031]
  We combine two cheap internal signals, a reference-anchored activation refusal-gap and a weight-recovery energy of the base-to-candidate weight difference, into a threshold-free checkpoint audit.<n>On a 273-checkpoint registry spanning Qwen, DeepSeek-distilled Qwen, Llama, and Gemma, our z-sum separates 57 public abliterations from 37 benign fine-tunes, merges, and instruction-tunes at AUROC 0.95.<n>The audit is effective triage, not tamper-proofing: it presumes an attested reference, and its claims are bounded by the registry we evaluate
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T08:15:25Z)
• Catching One in Five: LLM-as-Judge Blind Spots in Production Multi-Turn Transaction Agents [45.148328075418156]
  We study a deployed multi-turn food-and-beverage ordering agent and measure how many genuine quality problems it catches.<n>Our blind-spot taxonomy shows the failure is structured, not random.<n>For production multi-turn agents, automated judging is a regression floor, not a substitute for human review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T02:11:01Z)
• Hierarchical Certified Semantic Commitment for Byzantine-Resilient LLM-Agent Collaboration [30.310793549183117]
  We introduce Hierarchical Certified Semantic Commitment (H-CSC), a BFT-inspired protocol that converts embedding-derived finality signals over verdict-emitting proposal groups into one of three typed outcomes.<n>H-CSC commits with low angular deviation on BFT-feasible buckets (0.31 to 2.04 degrees) and aborts 100% of beyond-BFT rounds (n3f+1) as intended.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T14:35:58Z)
• Hallucination as Exploit: Evidence-Carrying Multimodal Agents [10.441697487723568]
  Multimodal agents increasingly choose tool calls from screenshots, documents, and webpages, where a false perceptual claim can turn from an answer-quality error into an authorization failure.<n>We propose evidence-carrying multimodal agents (ECA), which treat free-form model text as inadmissible evidence.<n>ECA converts opaque model belief into auditable residuals at the verifier, schema, and implementation levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:40:43Z)
• Distributional Energy-Based Models for Uncertainty-Aware Structured LLM Reasoning [40.342912574072024]
  Large Language Models produce structured outputs such as travel plans or code solutions.<n>Individual reasoning steps may appear correct while the output as a whole violates budgets, fails test cases, or contradicts earlier deductions.<n>We propose a learned quality scorer with deterministic analytical constraint penalties for verifying structured LLM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T17:08:27Z)
• When No Benchmark Exists: Validating Comparative LLM Safety Scoring Without Ground-Truth Labels [34.86529553336423]
  Many deployments must compare candidate language models for safety before a labeled benchmark exists for the relevant language, sector, or regulatory regime.<n>We formalize this setting as benchmarkless comparative safety scoring and specify the contract under which a scenario-based audit can be interpreted as deployment evidence.<n>Scores are valid only under a fixed scenario pack, rubric, auditor, judge, sampling configuration, and rerun budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T17:56:41Z)
• A Coin Flip for Safety: LLM Judges Fail to Reliably Measure Adversarial Robustness [57.510025257780306]
  We show that existing validation protocols fail to account for substantial distribution shifts inherent to red-teaming.<n>We propose ReliableBench, a benchmark of behaviors that remain more consistently judgeable, and JudgeStressTest, a dataset designed to expose judge failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T15:13:35Z)

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.