arXiv:2607. 04448v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ensuring software compliance with regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) poses a significant challenge, as requirements engineers must translate complex legal text into actionable software requirements - a process that remains largely manual and error-prone in practice.
By Pavithra PM Nair, Preethu Rose Anish
Code-as-Auditor is an LLM-based framework that transforms regulatory information into formal checklists and executable decision trees, encoding rules as interpretable code. During inference, the model expands each checklist item into factual and counterfactual questions, guiding reasoning over case-specific evidence and potential violations. This pipeline moves from evidence identification to rule application and final decision-making, with a self‑verification loop that enhances logical consistency and traceability, leading to more accurate and evidence‑backed compliance evaluations in privacy and data protection scenarios.
By Jisoo Kim, Taeyoon Kwack, Jinwoo Jang, Woo Kyung Kim, Honguk Woo
arXiv:2608. 02699v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When algorithms make or influence consequential decisions---about loan eligibility, hiring, or healthcare---EU law grants affected individuals a Right to Explanation.
By Benjamin Fresz, Elena Dubovitskaya, Marco F. Huber
arXiv:2608. 08830v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Legal Statute Prediction (LSP) involves automatically identifying relevant legal statutes given factual descriptions in legal documents, typically framed as a multi-label classification task within natural language processing and information retrieval research.
By Subinay Adhikary, Upal Bhattacharya, Vivek Kumar Singh, Anurag Sharma, Shubham Kumar Nigam, Suvasis Das, Shouvik Kumar Guha, Koustav Rudra, Kripabandhu Ghosh
The paper introduces a systematic method for comparing different formalizations of the same legal provision by analyzing their inferences on individual cases. It matches formalizations at the node level, derives shared interfaces, and uses a SAT solver to identify edge cases where any two formalizations disagree. The authors apply this approach to ten EU provisions formalized by nine advanced LLMs, finding that behavioral divergence is largely uncorrelated with structural agreement and that the resulting edge cases expose distinct types of disagreement, some reflecting real legal controversies.
By Julius Vernie, Matthias Grabmair
arXiv:2608. 04011v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This article examines the enduring epistemic and methodological crisis of traditional legal practice in light of the opportunities and constraints introduced by artificial intelligence.
By Ali Goksu, F. Gozde Kardes, Mustafa Yaylali
arXiv:2606. 15646v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed natural language processing, but their lack of interpretable reasoning and tendency to hallucinate pose significant challenges for legal applications.
By Deepa Tilwani, Yash Saxena, Ankur Padia, Srinivasan Parthasarathy, Manas Gaur
arXiv:2608. 10400v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: What if judges already behave like algorithms?
By Riya Manchanda, Eric Chen, Chloe Zhu, Cynthia Rudin, Brandon Garrett, Songman Kang
arXiv:2606. 23913v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This article develops an architecture that creates a formally verifiable reward signal to train legal AI, adapting the LLM proposes, verifier disposes paradigm from mathematical AI to the distinctive demands of law.
By Armin Heydari (Harvard University), Torben Leowald (Columbia University)
arXiv:2607. 04907v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) in high-stakes clinical settings remains limited by structural hallucinations, weak deterministic reasoning over tabular patient data, and omissions in vector retrieval.
By Mohammed Saim Ahmed Quadri, Yunzhe Xue, Justin W. Ady, Usman Roshan
The study examines whether large language models (LLMs) can perform legally meaningful reasoning by testing OpenAI GPT 5.4 on European Court of Human Rights case forecasting. Using various prompting strategies, the authors find that the model produces structurally complete but substantively shallow analyses, and that LLM-as-a-Judge evaluators are internally consistent yet only weakly aligned with human annotators. The expert-curated prompt yields more comprehensive reasoning but does not improve prediction accuracy, leading the authors to caution against relying solely on automated LLM evaluation or using task accuracy as a proxy for reasoning quality.
By Amogh Raina, Ilias Chalkidis, Daniel Hershcovich, Henrik Palmer Olsen
arXiv:2608.28593v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: With the increasing development of AI regulatory frameworks, ensuring that artificial intelligence systems, particularly generative models, operate in...
By Cindy Delage, St\'ephane Canu, Marc D\'ecombas, Jonathan Foureur