arXiv Computation and Language By Ibrahim Siddig, Munir Georges

Enhancing Legal Reasoning in Pre-trained Language Models via Knowledge Graph-Guided Multi-Task Pre-training

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The paper introduces a multi‑task pre‑training strategy for German traffic law that integrates Knowledge Graph (KG) information through Next Sentence Prediction, KG‑Guided Clustering, and KG‑Aware Paragraph Classification. By embedding structured legal knowledge into Transformer weights, the model can perform zero‑shot legal reasoning without explicit graph traversal. Experiments on nine encoders and 324 runs show substantial gains—up to 155% over baselines on synthetic StVO QA and improved performance on four of seven LexGLUE benchmarks, with consistent zero‑shot transfer to Austrian driving regulations.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

arXiv AI
Jul 22

Reasoning Before Translation: Enhancing Legal Machine Translation with Structured Reasoning

arXiv:2607. 19181v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Neural machine translation (NMT) in the legal domain is a linguistically and conceptually demanding task, primarily due to the complexity of legal language and the high level of precision it requires.

By Aixiu An, Michael Jungo, Eloi Eynard, Mark Drenhaus, Andreas Fischer, Jean Hennebert, S\'ebastien Rumley
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1

JPO: Juris Policy Optimization for Structured Legal Reasoning in Criminal Judgment Prediction

The paper introduces Juris Policy Optimization (JPO), a post‑training framework designed to enhance structured legal reasoning in Chinese criminal judgment prediction. JPO first trains models with teacher‑generated rationales to guide a four‑step reasoning process, then applies reinforcement learning using a composite reward that balances prediction accuracy, reasoning completeness, and cross‑step consistency. Experiments on several open‑source language models and three Chinese legal benchmarks demonstrate that JPO consistently outperforms both supervised fine‑tuning and standard reinforcement learning baselines in terms of judgment prediction and reasoning quality.

By Zhaolu Kang, Yantao Liu, Tailong Luo, Leqi Zheng, Lei Wei, Chenghua Zhu, Junhao Gong, Jiachen Qian, Eric Hanchen Jiang, Jiaxin Liu, Yuan Wang, Hao Zhang, Zixia Wang, Rong Fu, Zheng Lin, Richeng Xuan, Zhichao Hu
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 24

LEGO: Synergizing Expert GraphRAG and Expert Chain-of-Thought for Legal Reasoning

LEGO is a dual‑module framework that combines a Legal Expert GraphRAG system with an expert Chain‑of‑Thought approach to enhance complex legal reasoning. The GraphRAG component uses an expert‑annotated civil code graph and a greedy normative‑coverage retrieval algorithm to extract relevant provision subgraphs, while the Chain‑of‑Thought module structures retrieved provisions and case facts into a Provision‑Fact‑Conclusion reasoning flow. Using a Qwen3‑8B backbone, LEGO achieves 40.53% exact‑match accuracy on LawExamQA_Civil, surpassing baseline RAG and CoT models and matching larger models on multi‑hop and open‑ended benchmarks, with ablation studies confirming the complementary benefits of both modules.

By Qingjing Chen, Junkai Zhang, Shaochun Wang, Jiahao Ding, Siyuan Zheng, Yukun Yan, Zhi Zheng, Antonino Rotolo, Yun Liu, Weixing Shen
arXiv AI
Aug 18

When Do LLMs Apply the Wrong Law? Diagnosing LLM Failures in Temporal Legal Reasoning

arXiv:2608. 14610v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Legal reasoning tasks such as legal judgment prediction (LJP) require identifying the temporally correct version of the law governing a case -- a capability we term temporal applicable-law determination.

By Yiqian Huang, Shuyuan Zheng, Qianying Liu, Shaowen Peng, Yuntao Kong, Kotaro Funakoshi, Chuan Xiao, Manabu Okumura, Yang Cao