# Defending the Hierarchical Result Models of Precedential Constraint

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.13505 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.13505/

## 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.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/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.