Falkor-IRAC: Graph-Constrained Generation for Verified Legal Reasoning in Indian Judicial AI
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code
Abstract (arXiv)
Legal reasoning is not semantic similarity search. A court judgment encodes constrained symbolic reasoning: precedent propagation, procedural state transitions, and statute-bound inference. These are properties that vector-based retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) cannot faithfully represent. Hallucinated precedents, outdated statute citations, and unsupported reasoning chains remain persistent failure modes in LLM-based legal AI, with real consequences for access to justice in high-caseload jurisdictions such as India. This paper presents Falkor-IRAC, a graph-constrained generation framework for Indian legal AI that grounds generation in structured reasoning over an IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) knowledge graph. Judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts of India are ingested as IRAC node structures enriched with procedural state transitions, precedent relationships, and statutory references, stored in FalkorDB for low-latency agentic traversal. At inference time, LLM-generated answers are accepted only if a valid supporting path can be traced through the graph, a check performed by a falsifiability oracle called the Verifier Agent. The system also detects doctrinal conflicts as a first-class output rather than silently resolving them. Falkor-IRAC is evaluated using graph-native metrics: citation grounding accuracy, path validity rate, hallucinated precedent rate, and conflict detection rate. These metrics are argued to be more appropriate for legal reasoning evaluation than BLEU and ROUGE. On a proof-of-concept corpus of 51 Supreme Court judgments, the Verifier Agent correctly validated citations on completed queries and correctly rejected fabricated citations. Evaluation against vector-only RAG baselines is left for future work. The companion InIRAC dataset, 500+ structured Indian court judgments with IRAC annotations, is released alongside this paper.
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. Builds on 4 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 May 2026.
Builds on
4 of 14 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 3
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
- 2023Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflectioncited by 1,839
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Domain-Partitioned Hybrid RAG for Legal Reasoning: Toward Modular and Explainable Legal AI for India
- 2026LegalGraphRAG: Multi-Agent Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Reliable Legal Reasoning
- 2025Bridging Legal Knowledge and AI: Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Vector Stores, Knowledge Graphs, and Hierarchical Non-negative Matrix Factorization
- 2025Deterministic Legal Agents: A Canonical Primitive API for Auditable Reasoning over Temporal Knowledge Graphs
- 2025A Reasoning-Focused Legal Retrieval Benchmark
- 2025NyayaRAG: Realistic Legal Judgment Prediction with RAG under the Indian Common Law System
- 2026NyayaAI: An AI-Powered Legal Assistant Using Multi-Agent Architecture and Retrieval-Augmented Generation
- 2026Legal-R1: Agentic Retrieval for Evidence-Based Legal Reasoning