Bridging Legal Interpretation and Formal Logic: Faithfulness, Assumption, and the Future of AI Legal Reasoning
Authors: Olivia Peiyu Wang, Leilani H. Gilpin
Summary
arXiv:2605. 14049v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The growing adoption of large language models in legal practice brings both significant promise and serious risk.
Relevance
Read next because Bridging Legal Interpretation and Formal Logic: Faithfulness, Assumption, and the Future of AI Legal Reasoning overlaps with clean result "LoRA persona trained on alone emits at 23.5% when a co-trained partner learns ..., vs 0% control on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (MODERATE confidence)", clean result "Leakage rate is a usable signal for recovering trigger-shaped phrases on Gaperon-1125-1B without knowing the hidden trigger itself (MODERATE confidence)", clean result "Language-mismatch LoRA SFT on Qwen2.5-7B leaks the trained completion language into bystander directives the model was never trained on, absent under same-language SFT (LOW confidence)". Matching terms: text, source, without, language, model. Source: arxiv cs.AI (Artificial Intelligence).
Abstract
arXiv:2605.14049v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The growing adoption of large language models in legal practice brings both significant promise and serious risk. Legal professionals stand to benefit from AI that can reason over contracts, draft documents, and analyze sources at scale, yet the high-stakes nature of legal work demands a level of rigor that current AI systems do not provide. The central problem is not simply that LLMs hallucinate facts and references; it is that they systematically draw inferences that go beyond what the source text actually supports, presenting assumption-laden conclusions as if they were logically grounded. This proposal presents a neuro-symbolic approach to legal AI that combines the expressive power of large language models with the rigor of formal verification, aiming to make AI-assisted legal reasoning both capable and trustworthy, thus reducing the burden of manual verification without sacrificing the accountability that legal practice demands.