Defending the Hierarchical Result Models of Precedential Constraint
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
In recent years, hierarchical case-based-reasoning models of precedential constraint have been proposed. In various papers, Trevor Bench-Capon criticised these models on the grounds that they would give incorrect outcomes in some cases. In particular, the models would not account for the possibility that intermediate factors are established with different strengths by different base-level factors. In this paper we respond to these criticisms for van Woerkom's result-based hierarchical models. We argue that in some examples Bench-Capon seems to interpret intermediate factors as dimensions, and that applying van Woerkom's dimension-based version of the hierarchical result model to these examples avoids Bench-Capon's criticisms.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 0 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Dec 2025.
Builds on
0 of 15 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Thinking Longer, Not Always Smarter: Evaluating LLM Capabilities in Hierarchical Legal Reasoning
- 2025CoRE: Condition-based Reasoning for Identifying Outcome Variance in Complex Events
- 2025Argumentative Reasoning with Language Models on Non-factorized Case Bases
- 2024Assessing the Reasoning Capabilities of LLMs in the context of Evidence-based Claim Verification
- 2025What Defines Good Reasoning in LLMs? Dissecting Reasoning Steps with Multi-Aspect Evaluation
- 2024Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Claim Verification
- 2024Critical-Questions-of-Thought: Steering LLM reasoning with Argumentative Querying
- 2026Are Your Reasoning Models Reasoning or Guessing? A Mechanistic Analysis of Hierarchical Reasoning Models