mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Explainable Rule Application via Structured Prompting: A Neural-Symbolic Approach

arXiv 2506.16335 ↗First posted 19 Jun 2025cs.AI cs.CLcited by 14

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in complex reasoning tasks but struggle with consistent rule application, exception handling, and explainability, particularly in domains like legal analysis that require both natural language understanding and precise logical inference. This paper introduces a structured prompting framework that decomposes reasoning into three verifiable steps: entity identification, property extraction, and symbolic rule application. By integrating neural and symbolic approaches, our method leverages LLMs' interpretive flexibility while ensuring logical consistency through formal verification. The framework externalizes task definitions, enabling domain experts to refine logical structures without altering the architecture. Evaluated on the LegalBench hearsay determination task, our approach significantly outperformed baselines, with OpenAI o-family models showing substantial improvements - o1 achieving an F1 score of 0.929 and o3-mini reaching 0.867 using structured decomposition with complementary predicates, compared to their few-shot baselines of 0.714 and 0.74 respectively. This hybrid neural-symbolic system offers a promising pathway for transparent and consistent rule-based reasoning, suggesting potential for explainable AI applications in structured legal reasoning tasks.

Key facts. Cited by 14 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 19 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Jun 2025.

Builds on

19 of 30 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Towards Robust Legal Reasoning: Harnessing Logical LLMs in Law24 Feb
  2. 2024Chain of Logic: Rule-Based Reasoning with Large Language Models16 Feb

Other references · 17

  1. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  2. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  3. 2023Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4cited by 2,592
  4. 2022PAL: Program-aided Language Modelscited by 652
  5. 2022Decomposed Prompting: A Modular Approach for Solving Complex Taskscited by 558
  6. 2024GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 550
  7. 2024Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Toolscited by 176
  8. 2024Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Modelscited by 150
  9. 2023Can LLMs Follow Simple Rules?cited by 46
  10. 2024Logically Consistent Language Models via Neuro-Symbolic Integrationcited by 30
  11. 2025Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Improving Factuality in Legal Question Answeringcited by 28
  12. 2025LLMs Provide Unstable Answers to Legal Questionscited by 19
5 more
  1. 2024Autoformalizing Natural Language to First-Order Logic: A Case Study in Logical Fallacy Detectioncited by 18
  2. 2022LegalBench: Prototyping a Collaborative Benchmark for Legal Reasoningcited by 17
  3. 2024Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Languagecited by 14
  4. 2024textttLM^texttt2: A Simple Society of Language Models Solves Complex Reasoningcited by 7
  5. 2025Teaching AI to Handle Exceptions: Supervised Fine-Tuning with Human-Aligned Judgmentcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 5; 2026: 9.

14 papers.

Sort:

By area:

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026NeuroSymbolic AI for Legal AI-TRISM: Trustworthy, Reliable, Interpretable, Safe Models
  2. 2026Reasoners or Translators? Contamination-aware Evaluation and Neuro-Symbolic Robustness in Tax Law
  3. 2026Bridging Legal Interpretation and Formal Logic: Faithfulness, Assumption, and the Future of AI Legal Reasoning
  4. 2026LePREC: Reasoning as Classification over Structured Factors for Assessing Relevance of Legal Issues
  5. 2026OpenExempt: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Legal Reasoning and a Framework for Creating Custom Benchmarks on Demand
  6. 2025Evaluating Test-Time Scaling LLMs for Legal Reasoning: OpenAI o1, DeepSeek-R1, and Beyond
  7. 2025On Verifiable Legal Reasoning: A Multi-Agent Framework with Formalized Knowledge Representations
  8. 2026Neuron Level Analysis of Large Language Model in Legal Domain Reasoning