From Statute to Control Flow: Span-Grounded Deontic Trees for Defeasible Scope Parsing
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Rule-following agents tasked with executing policies and regulations often fail via Silent Scope Omission (SSO): a model applies a general rule but silently drops nested exceptions or counter-exceptions, producing outputs that appear compliant yet break on important edge cases. Although such failures are often framed as an agentic-systems problem, the underlying bottleneck is statutory and policy understanding, a capability typically studied in legal NLP. However, most existing legal NLP benchmarks emphasize end-task outcomes, which can overlook the structural omissions that cause SSO. To diagnose and mitigate SSO, we introduce NormBench, a benchmark of 2,290 provisions spanning Chinese (laws and local policies), English (U.S. tax law, GDPR, and corporate policies), and cross-lingual settings, designed for defeasible scope parsing: identifying precisely which clause overrides which. NormBench uses Span-Grounded Deontic Trees (SG-DT), a compiler-style intermediate representation that anchors every logical branch to source spans and requires explicit exclusion guards, enabling deterministic compilation and audit. Evaluations of frontier LLMs reveal two recurring pathologies: (1) Recursion Decay, where performance drops sharply as defeater depth increases, and (2) an Auditability Trap, where models retrieve relevant spans but fail to assemble correct control flow. Using SG-DT as a constrained intermediate output improves whole-tree fidelity and defeater recovery, and downstream experiments show that its utility is mechanism-specific: gains concentrate on exception-active, SSO-prone cases, while aggregate accuracy can be mixed when the added structure is unnecessary or parser fidelity is low.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Jun 2026.
Builds on
13 of 28 references.
References · 13
- 2021LexGLUE: A Benchmark Dataset for Legal Language Understanding in Englishcited by 310
- 2024Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Modelscited by 150
- 2018Interpretation of Natural Language Rules in Conversational Machine Readingcited by 75
- 2020A Dataset for Statutory Reasoning in Tax Law Entailment and Question Answeringcited by 62
- 2024FinTextQA: A Dataset for Long-form Financial Question Answeringcited by 54
- 2025LEXam: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning on 340 Law Examscited by 54
- 2024Natural Language Processing for the Legal Domain: A Survey of Tasks, Datasets, Models, and Challengescited by 42
- 2024LexEval: A Comprehensive Chinese Legal Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Modelscited by 37
- 2021Factoring Statutory Reasoning as Language Understanding Challengescited by 20
- 2025"You don't need a university degree to comprehend data protection this way": LLM-Powered Interactive Privacy Policy Assessmentcited by 5
- 2025Compliance-to-Code: Enhancing Financial Compliance Checking via Code Generationcited by 4
- 2024Towards Exception Safety Code Generation with Intermediate Representation Agents Frameworkcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026DeonticBench: A Benchmark for Reasoning over Rules
- 2026Policy-Invisible Violations in LLM-Based Agents
- 2026Know Your Limits : On the Faithfulness of LLMs as Solvers and Autoformalizers in Legal Reasoning
- 2025EU-Agent-Bench: Measuring Illegal Behavior of LLM Agents Under EU Law
- 2026OpenExempt: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Legal Reasoning and a Framework for Creating Custom Benchmarks on Demand
- 2026PolicyKG: An Agentic LLM Pipeline for Translating Institutional Policies into SHACL Knowledge Graphs
- 2026DAR: Deontic Reasoning with Agentic Harnesses
- 2025MASLegalBench: Benchmarking Multi-Agent Systems in Deductive Legal Reasoning