Reasoning-focused large language models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving across various domains, yet their capabilities in handling complex legal problems remains underexplored. In this paper, we introduce Unilaw-R1, a large language model tailored for legal reasoning. With a lightweight 7-billion parameter scale, Unilaw-R1 significantly reduces deployment cost while effectively tackling three core challenges in the legal domain: insufficient legal knowledge, unreliable reasoning logic, and weak business generalization. To address these issues, we first construct Unilaw-R1-Data, a high-quality dataset containing 17K distilled and screened chain-of-thought (CoT) samples. Based on this, we adopt a two-stage training strategy combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL), which significantly boosts the performance on complex legal reasoning tasks and supports interpretable decision-making in legal AI applications. To assess legal reasoning ability, we also introduce Unilaw-R1-Eval, a dedicated benchmark designed to evaluate models across single- and multi-choice legal tasks. Unilaw-R1 demonstrates strong results on authoritative benchmarks, outperforming all models of similar scale and achieving performance on par with the much larger DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B (54.9%). Following domain-specific training, it also showed significant gains on LawBench and LexEval, exceeding Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct (46.6%) by an average margin of 6.6%.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning abilities across specialized domains, motivating research into their application to legal reasoning. However, existing legal benchmarks often conflate factual recall with genuine inference, fragment the reasoning process, and overlook the quality of reasoning. To address these limitations, we introduce MSLR, the first Chinese multi-step legal reasoning dataset grounded in real-world judicial decision making. MSLR adopts the IRAC framework (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) to model structured expert reasoning from official legal documents. In addition, we design a scalable Human-LLM collaborative annotation pipeline that efficiently produces fine-grained step-level reasoning annotations and provides a reusable methodological framework for multi-step reasoning datasets. Evaluation of multiple LLMs on MSLR shows only moderate performance, highlighting the challenges of adapting to complex legal reasoning. Further experiments demonstrate that Self-Initiated Chain-of-Thought prompts generated by models autonomously improve reasoning coherence and quality, outperforming human-designed prompts. MSLR contributes to advancing LLM reasoning and Chain-of-Thought strategies and offers open resources for future research. The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/yuwenhan07/MSLR-Bench and https://law.sjtu.edu.cn/flszyjzx/index.html.

This study introduces a hybrid neuro-symbolic framework that achieves deterministic detection of statutory inconsistency in complex law. We use the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as a case study because its complexity makes it a fertile domain for identifying conflicts. Our research offers a solution for detecting inconsistent provisions by combining Large Language Models (LLMs) with symbolic logic. LLM-based methods can support compliance, fairness, and statutory drafting, yet tax-specific applications remain sparse. A key challenge is that such models struggle with hierarchical processing and deep structured reasoning, especially over long text. This research addresses these gaps through experiments using GPT-4o, GPT-5, and Prolog. GPT-4o was first used to translate Section 121 into Prolog rules and refine them in SWISH. These rules were then incorporated into prompts to test whether Prolog-augmented prompting improved GPT-4o's inconsistency detection. GPT-4o, whether prompted with natural language alone or with Prolog augmentation, detected the inconsistency in only one of three strategies (33 percent accuracy), but its reasoning quality differed: natural-language prompting achieved 100 percent rule coverage, while Prolog-augmented prompting achieved 66 percent, indicating more incomplete statutory analysis. In contrast to probabilistic prompting, the hybrid Prolog model produced deterministic and reproducible results. Guided by GPT-5 for refinement, the model formalized the IRC section's competing interpretations and successfully detected an inconsistency zone. Validation tests confirm that the Prolog implementation is accurate, internally consistent, deterministic, and capable of autonomously identifying inconsistencies. These findings show that LLM-assisted formalization, anchored in symbolic logic, enables transparent and reliable statutory inconsistency detection.

Legal compliance in AI-driven data transfer planning is becoming increasingly critical under stringent privacy regulations such as the Japanese Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI). We propose a multi-agent legal verifier that decomposes compliance checking into specialized agents for statutory interpretation, business context evaluation, and risk assessment, coordinated through a structured synthesis protocol. Evaluated on a stratified dataset of 200 Amended APPI Article 16 cases with clearly defined ground truth labels and multiple performance metrics, the system achieves 72% accuracy, which is 21 percentage points higher than a single-agent baseline, including 90% accuracy on clear compliance cases (vs. 16% for the baseline) while maintaining perfect detection of clear violations. While challenges remain in ambiguous scenarios, these results show that domain specialization and coordinated reasoning can meaningfully improve legal AI performance, providing a scalable and regulation-aware framework for trustworthy and interpretable automated compliance verification.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in complex reasoning tasks but struggle with consistent rule application, exception handling, and explainability, particularly in domains like legal analysis that require both natural language understanding and precise logical inference. This paper introduces a structured prompting framework that decomposes reasoning into three verifiable steps: entity identification, property extraction, and symbolic rule application. By integrating neural and symbolic approaches, our method leverages LLMs' interpretive flexibility while ensuring logical consistency through formal verification. The framework externalizes task definitions, enabling domain experts to refine logical structures without altering the architecture. Evaluated on the LegalBench hearsay determination task, our approach significantly outperformed baselines, with OpenAI o-family models showing substantial improvements - o1 achieving an F1 score of 0.929 and o3-mini reaching 0.867 using structured decomposition with complementary predicates, compared to their few-shot baselines of 0.714 and 0.74 respectively. This hybrid neural-symbolic system offers a promising pathway for transparent and consistent rule-based reasoning, suggesting potential for explainable AI applications in structured legal reasoning tasks.

Legal reasoning requires both precise interpretation of statutory language and consistent application of complex rules, presenting significant challenges for AI systems. This paper introduces a modular multi-agent framework that decomposes legal reasoning into distinct knowledge acquisition and application stages. In the first stage, specialized agents extract legal concepts and formalize rules to create verifiable intermediate representations of statutes. The second stage applies this knowledge to specific cases through three steps: analyzing queries to map case facts onto the ontology schema, performing symbolic inference to derive logically entailed conclusions, and generating final answers using a programmatic implementation that operationalizes the ontological knowledge. This bridging of natural language understanding with symbolic reasoning provides explicit and verifiable inspection points, significantly enhancing transparency compared to end-to-end approaches. Evaluation on statutory tax calculation tasks demonstrates substantial improvements, with foundational models achieving 76.4\% accuracy compared to 18.8\% baseline performance, effectively narrowing the performance gap between reasoning and foundational models. These findings suggest that modular architectures with formalized knowledge representations can make sophisticated legal reasoning more accessible through computationally efficient models while enhancing consistency and explainability in AI legal reasoning, establishing a foundation for future research into more transparent, trustworthy, and effective AI systems for legal domain.

Court judgments reveal how legal rules have been interpreted and applied to facts, providing a foundation for understanding structured legal reasoning. However, existing automated approaches for capturing legal reasoning, including large language models, often fail to identify the relevant legal context, do not accurately trace how facts relate to legal norms, and may misrepresent the layered structure of judicial reasoning. These limitations hinder the ability to capture how courts apply the law to facts in practice. In this paper, we address these challenges by constructing a legal knowledge graph from 648 Japanese administrative court decisions. Our method extracts components of legal reasoning using prompt-based large language models, normalizes references to legal provisions, and links facts, norms, and legal applications through an ontology of legal inference. The resulting graph captures the full structure of legal reasoning as it appears in real court decisions, making implicit reasoning explicit and machine-readable. We evaluate our system using expert annotated data, and find that it achieves more accurate retrieval of relevant legal provisions from facts than large language model baselines and retrieval-augmented methods.

Test-time scaling (TTS) techniques can improve the performance of large language models (LLMs) at the expense of additional computation and latency. While TTS has proven effective in formal domains such as mathematics and programming, its value in argumentative domains such as law remains underexplored. We present an empirical study of verifier-based TTS methods for legal multiple-choice QA (MCQA) across five benchmarks. Using a family of 7 reward models, we evaluate both outcome-level (Best-of-$N$) and process-level (tree search) verification under realistic low-$N$ budgets. Our analysis systematically investigates how verifier utility is affected by key properties such as domain specialization, model size, and supervision type (process-supervised PRMs vs. outcome-only ORMs), even when applied across different roles.

The rise of influencer marketing has blurred boundaries between organic content and sponsored content, making the enforcement of legal rules relating to transparency challenging. Effective regulation requires applying legal knowledge with a clear purpose and reason, yet current detection methods of undisclosed sponsored content generally lack legal grounding or operate as opaque "black boxes". Using 1,143 Instagram posts, we compare gpt-5-nano and gemini-2.5-flash-lite under three prompting strategies with controlled levels of legal knowledge provided. Both models perform strongly in classifying content as sponsored or not (F1 up to 0.93), though performance drops by over 10 points on ambiguous cases. We further develop a taxonomy of reasoning errors, showing frequent citation omissions (28.57%), unclear references (20.71%), and hidden ads exhibiting the highest miscue rate (28.57%). While adding regulatory text to the prompt improves explanation quality, it does not consistently improve detection accuracy. The contribution of this paper is threefold. First, it makes a novel addition to regulatory compliance technology by providing a taxonomy of common errors in LLM-generated legal reasoning to evaluate whether automated moderation is not only accurate but also legally robust, thereby advancing the transparent detection of influencer marketing content. Second, it features an original dataset of LLM explanations annotated by two students who were trained in influencer marketing law. Third, it combines quantitative and qualitative evaluation strategies for LLM explanations and critically reflects on how these findings can support advertising regulatory bodies in automating moderation processes on a solid legal foundation.

We introduce ALARB, a dataset and suite of tasks designed to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) within the Arabic legal domain. While existing Arabic benchmarks cover some knowledge-intensive tasks such as retrieval and understanding, substantial datasets focusing specifically on multistep reasoning for Arabic LLMs, especially in open-ended contexts, are lacking. The dataset comprises over 13K commercial court cases from Saudi Arabia, with each case including the facts presented, the reasoning of the court, the verdict, as well as the cited clauses extracted from the regulatory documents. We define a set of challenging tasks leveraging this dataset and reflecting the complexity of real-world legal reasoning, including verdict prediction, completion of reasoning chains in multistep legal arguments, and identification of relevant regulations based on case facts. We benchmark a representative selection of current open and closed Arabic LLMs on these tasks and demonstrate the dataset's utility for instruction tuning. Notably, we show that instruction-tuning a modest 12B parameter model using ALARB significantly enhances its performance in verdict prediction and Arabic verdict generation, reaching a level comparable to that of GPT-4o.