mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Logical Lease Litigation: Prolog and LLMs for Rental Law Compliance in New York

arXiv 2502.09204 ↗First posted 13 Feb 2025cs.AI cs.LOcited by 2

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code

Abstract (arXiv)

Legal cases require careful logical reasoning following the laws, whereas interactions with non-technical users must be in natural language. As an application combining logical reasoning using Prolog and natural language processing using large language models (LLMs), this paper presents a novel approach and system, LogicLease, to automate the analysis of landlord-tenant legal cases in the state of New York. LogicLease determines compliance with relevant legal requirements by analyzing case descriptions and citing all relevant laws. It leverages LLMs for information extraction and Prolog for legal reasoning. By separating information extraction from legal reasoning, LogicLease achieves greater transparency and control over the legal logic applied to each case. We evaluate the accuracy, efficiency, and robustness of LogicLease through a series of tests, achieving 100% accuracy and an average processing time of 2.57 seconds. LogicLease presents advantages over state-of-the-art LLM-based legal analysis systems by providing clear, step-by-step reasoning, citing specific laws, and distinguishing itself by its ability to avoid hallucinations -- a common issue in LLMs.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. First posted on arXiv 13 Feb 2025.

Builds on

0 of 0 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Towards Robust Legal Reasoning: Harnessing Logical LLMs in Law
  2. 2024Equitable Access to Justice: Logical LLMs Show Promise
  3. 2023LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models
  4. 2026Know Your Limits : On the Faithfulness of LLMs as Solvers and Autoformalizers in Legal Reasoning
  5. 2026Evaluation of Large Language Models in Legal Applications: Challenges, Methods, and Future Directions
  6. 2026Bridging Legal Interpretation and Formal Logic: Faithfulness, Assumption, and the Future of AI Legal Reasoning
  7. 2025Better Call CLAUSE: A Discrepancy Benchmark for Auditing LLMs Legal Reasoning Capabilities
  8. 2024Software Engineering Methods For AI-Driven Deductive Legal Reasoning