From Judgments to Issues: Structured Extraction of Legal Reasoning with Citation-Hallucination Control
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code
Abstract (arXiv)
We present an automated pipeline that decomposes Italian tax-court judgments into individual legal issues and extracts, for each issue, a structured XML representation grounded in the IRAC framework and the legal syllogism. The pipeline targets a corpus of approximately 330,000 first- and second-instance decisions of the Italian tax courts and is built around a capable yet cost-efficient general-purpose model (DeepSeek V3), a choice driven by the need to process several hundred thousand documents at a sustainable cost. To address the well-documented unreliability of large language models on legal citations, we couple the extraction step with an automatic hallucination-detection filter that compares the references produced by the model with those identified in the judgment text by a dedicated parser (Linkoln), normalised to standard identifiers (URN-NIR, ECLI, CELEX). We validate the pipeline on 50 judgments annotated by two PhDs in tax law, computing inter-annotator agreement and LLM-vs-expert agreement on both issue extraction and legal citations, together with a stand-alone evaluation of the hallucination filter. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first issue-level, expert-validated structured extraction pipeline with hallucination control for Italian tax-court decisions, and it provides a concrete starting point for downstream applications such as issue-level retrieval, citation-network analysis, and the construction of large-scale datasets of legal reasoning.
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 70 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Jul 2026.
Builds on
13 of 70 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 12
- 2024Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Modelscited by 144
- 2022Legal Prompting: Teaching a Language Model to Think Like a Lawyercited by 60
- 2022Mining Legal Arguments in Court Decisionscited by 35
- 2025LLMs Provide Unstable Answers to Legal Questionscited by 19
- 2021Measuring Law Over Time: A Network Analytical Framework with an Application to Statutes and Regulations in the United States and Germanycited by 17
- 2023From Text to Structure: Using Large Language Models to Support the Development of Legal Expert Systemscited by 17
- 2024Evaluating AI for Law: Bridging the Gap with Open-Source Solutionscited by 11
- 2023Legal Summarisation through LLMs: The PRODIGIT Projectcited by 10
- 2023Harnessing GPT-3.5-turbo for Rhetorical Role Prediction in Legal Casescited by 8
- 2023Question-Answering Approach to Evaluating Legal Summariescited by 5
- 2024Automating IRAC Analysis in Malaysian Contract Law using a Semi-Structured Knowledge Basecited by 5
- 2025Identifying Legal Holdings with LLMs: A Systematic Study of Performance, Scale, and Memorizationcited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026When Citations Mislead? A Claim-Level Benchmark for Legal Hallucination Detection
- 2024LegalBench-RAG: A Benchmark for Retrieval-Augmented Generation in the Legal Domain
- 2026SteuerLLM: Local specialized large language model for German tax law analysis
- 2026Temporal Misgrounding in Legal RAG: A Versioned-Corpus Benchmark for French Tax Law
- 2024Unlocking Legal Knowledge: A Multilingual Dataset for Judicial Summarization in Switzerland
- 2023One Law, Many Languages: Benchmarking Multilingual Legal Reasoning for Judicial Support
- 2024CLERC: A Dataset for Legal Case Retrieval and Retrieval-Augmented Analysis Generation
- 2026LexChronos: An Agentic Framework for Structured Event Timeline Extraction in Indian Jurisprudence