mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

LePREC: Reasoning as Classification over Structured Factors for Assessing Relevance of Legal Issues

arXiv 2604.19464 ↗First posted 21 Apr 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

More than half of the global population struggles to meet their civil justice needs due to limited legal resources. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities, significant challenges remain even at the foundational step of legal issue identification. To investigate LLMs' capabilities in this task, we constructed a dataset from 769 real-world Malaysian Contract Act court cases, using GPT-4o to extract facts and generate candidate legal issues, annotated by senior legal experts, which reveals a critical limitation: while LLMs generate diverse issue candidates, their precision remains inadequate (GPT-4o achieves only 62%). To address this gap, we propose LePREC (Legal Professional-inspired Reasoning Elicitation and Classification), a neuro-symbolic framework combining neural generation with structured statistical reasoning. LePREC consists of: (1) a neuro component leverages LLMs to transform legal descriptions into question-answer pairs representing diverse analytical factors, and (2) a symbolic component applies sparse linear models over these discrete features, learning explicit algebraic weights that identify the most informative reasoning factors. Unlike end-to-end neural approaches, LePREC achieves interpretability through transparent feature weighting while maintaining data efficiency through correlation-based statistical classification. Experiments show a 30-40% improvement over advanced LLM baselines, including GPT-4o and Claude, confirming that correlation-based factor-issue analysis offers a more data-efficient solution for relevance decisions.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 13 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Apr 2026.

Builds on

13 of 44 references.

References · 13

  1. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
  2. 2025gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Cardcited by 1,258
  3. 2015A Diversity-Promoting Objective Function for Neural Conversation Modelscited by 1,068
  4. 2024Phi-4 Technical Reportcited by 675
  5. 2024Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Predictioncited by 465
  6. 2020LEGAL-BERT: The Muppets straight out of Law Schoolcited by 111
  7. 2023Explaining Legal Concepts with Augmented Large Language Models (GPT-4)cited by 39
  8. 2024LLM-Select: Feature Selection with Large Language Modelscited by 29
  9. 2021Everything Has a Cause: Leveraging Causal Inference in Legal Text Analysiscited by 14
  10. 2024LegalLens: Leveraging LLMs for Legal Violation Identification in Unstructured Textcited by 12
  11. 2025LLM-Lasso: A Robust Framework for Domain-Informed Feature Selection and Regularizationcited by 10
  12. 2024Automating IRAC Analysis in Malaysian Contract Law using a Semi-Structured Knowledge Basecited by 5
1 more
  1. 2024Focus On This, Not That! Steering LLMs with Adaptive Feature Specificationcited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026NeuroSymbolic AI for Legal AI-TRISM: Trustworthy, Reliable, Interpretable, Safe Models
  2. 2025Towards Robust Legal Reasoning: Harnessing Logical LLMs in Law
  3. 2025Explainable Rule Application via Structured Prompting: A Neural-Symbolic Approach
  4. 2026Neuron Level Analysis of Large Language Model in Legal Domain Reasoning
  5. 2025Elevating Legal LLM Responses: Harnessing Trainable Logical Structures and Semantic Knowledge with Legal Reasoning
  6. 2026UA-Legal-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models on Ukrainian Legal Reasoning
  7. 2023One Law, Many Languages: Benchmarking Multilingual Legal Reasoning for Judicial Support
  8. 2025Unilaw-R1: A Large Language Model for Legal Reasoning with Reinforcement Learning and Iterative Inference