arXiv subjects

May Myo Zin

Publications and source records attributed to May Myo Zin.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Structured Four-Stage Legal Translation: From Natural-Language Traffic Rules to PROLOG

Traffic regulations are written for human interpretation and therefore rely on shared background knowledge and flexible phrasing, which inherently introduce ambiguity, context dependence, and semantic underspecification. These linguistic characteristics conflict with the precision required by computational reasoning engines such as Prolog, which demand explicit logical structure. This study evaluates two baseline translation approaches, Natural Language to Prolog ($NL\rightarrow Prolog$) and Logical English to Prolog ($LE\rightarrow Prolog$), and introduces a new reasoning-guided translation framework called Structured Four-Stage Legal Translation ($S4L\rightarrow Prolog$). The proposed S4L framework performs semantic role extraction, scene completion, logical mapping, and Prolog rule generation within a single guided prompt, enabling direct translation of raw traffic rules into executable logic without human intervention. A benchmark consisting of twenty real-world traffic rules was used to evaluate each approach in terms of syntactic validity, semantic correctness, and logical completeness. $S4L\rightarrow Prolog$ achieves the highest accuracy, correctly formalizing 75 percent of the rules, while $NL\rightarrow Prolog$ reaches 60 percent and $LE\rightarrow Prolog$ reaches 55 percent. Qualitative analysis further shows that S4L captures implicit causal relations, deontic modality, and exception structure more reliably than the baselines. These results demonstrate that structured reasoning prompts can substantially improve the reliability of natural-language-to-logic translation for legal and safety-critical applications.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Beyond Accuracy: A Dual-Judge Evaluation Protocol for Vision-Language Models in Legally Grounded Tasks

AI systems are increasingly evaluated for legally accountable settings, where correct outputs must also be justifiable against an applicable legal standard. Existing legal-AI benchmarks and LLM-as-judge protocols provide important infrastructure for measuring task performance and open-ended response quality. We contribute one additional evaluation signal: a dual-judge protocol that pairs a standard 0-10 quality judge with a strict binary semantic-equivalence judge against a human-curated reference. We study a controlled, visually grounded regulatory task - UK traffic-sign interpretation, whose meaning is a codified question with a known reference for every input - and measure not merely whether the two judges disagree (by construction they must) but how much and where. On 4,680 evaluations under seven visibility levels and two occlusion modes, the two judges are moderately associated (point-biserial r = 0.644), while revealing an asymmetric Type II pattern affecting 8.0% of all evaluations. Its distribution is instructive: the marginal rate peaks at high visibility (14.2% at v = 0.8) simply because high-scoring answers are common there, but conditioned on the answer already scoring above 7, the rate is highest under heavy occlusion (54-63% at v <= 0.3), so a high quality score is least trustworthy when the input is most degraded. We are explicit that the signal is a property of this judge and reference: a 49-row human check shows the 0-10 judge aligns closely with everyday-reader judgement (Pearson r = 0.81; r = 0.80 with the LLM accuracy sub-score), while the equivalence judge is fairly but one-directionally stricter. The protocol adds one LLM call per evaluation and surfaces a signal single-judge protocols do not report. We release the prompt template, occluded variants, and full evaluation results.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

GDPR Auto-Formalization with AI Agents and Human Verification

We study the overall process of automatic formalization of GDPR provisions using large language models, within a human-in-the-loop verification framework. Rather than aiming for full autonomy, we adopt a role-specialized workflow in which LLM-based AI components, operating in a multi-agent setting with iterative feedback, generate legal scenarios, formal rules, and atomic facts. This is coupled with independent verification modules which include human reviewers' assessment of representational, logical, and legal correctness. Using this approach, we construct a high-quality dataset to be used for GDPR auto-formalization, and analyze both successful and problematic cases. Our results show that structured verification and targeted human oversight are essential for reliable legal formalization, especially in the presence of legal nuance and context-sensitive reasoning.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Legal2LogicICL: Improving Generalization in Transforming Legal Cases to Logical Formulas via Diverse Few-Shot Learning

This work aims to improve the generalization of logic-based legal reasoning systems by integrating recent advances in NLP with legal-domain adaptive few-shot learning techniques using LLMs. Existing logic-based legal reasoning pipelines typically rely on fine-tuned models to map natural-language legal cases into logical formulas before forwarding them to a symbolic reasoner. However, such approaches are heavily constrained by the scarcity of high-quality annotated training data. To address this limitation, we propose a novel LLM-based legal reasoning framework that enables effective in-context learning through retrieval-augmented generation. Specifically, we introduce Legal2LogicICL, a few-shot retrieval framework that balances diversity and similarity of exemplars at both the latent semantic representation level and the legal text structure level. In addition, our method explicitly accounts for legal structure by mitigating entity-induced retrieval bias in legal texts, where lengthy and highly specific entity mentions often dominate semantic representations and obscure legally meaningful reasoning patterns. Our Legal2LogicICL constructs informative and robust few-shot demonstrations, leading to accurate and stable logical rule generation without requiring additional training. In addition, we construct a new dataset, named Legal2Proleg, which is annotated with alignments between legal cases and PROLEG logical formulas to support the evaluation of legal semantic parsing. Experimental results on both open-source and proprietary LLMs demonstrate that our approach significantly improves accuracy, stability, and generalization in transforming natural-language legal case descriptions into logical representations, highlighting its effectiveness for interpretable and reliable legal reasoning. Our code is available at https://github.com/yingjie7/Legal2LogicICL.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Data Augmented Pipeline for Legal Information Extraction and Reasoning

In this paper, we propose a pipeline leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) for data augmentation in Information Extraction tasks within the legal domain. The proposed method is both simple and effective, significantly reducing the manual effort required for data annotation while enhancing the robustness of Information Extraction systems. Furthermore, the method is generalizable, making it applicable to various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks beyond the legal domain.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Argumentative Reasoning with Language Models on Non-factorized Case Bases

In this paper, we investigate how language models can perform case-based reasoning (CBR) on non-factorized case bases. We introduce a novel framework, argumentative agentic models for case-based reasoning (AAM-CBR), which extends abstract argumentation for case-based reasoning (AA-CBR). Unlike traditional approaches that require factorization of previous cases, AAM-CBR leverages language models to determine case coverage and extract factors based on new cases. This enables factor-based reasoning without exposing or preprocessing previous cases, thus improving both flexibility and privacy. We also present initial experiments to assess AAM-CBR performance by comparing the proposed framework with a baseline that uses a single-prompt approach to incorporate both new and previous cases. The experiments are conducted based on a synthetic credit card application dataset. The result shows that AAM-CBR surpasses the baseline only when the new case contains a richer set of factors. The finding indicates that language models can handle case-based reasoning with a limited number of factors, but face challenges as the number of factors increase. Consequently, integrating symbolic reasoning with language models, as implemented in AAM-CBR, is crucial for effectively handling cases involving many factors.

cs.LO↗

arXiv2024

Layer-of-Thoughts Prompting (LoT): Leveraging LLM-Based Retrieval with Constraint Hierarchies

This paper presents a novel approach termed Layer-of-Thoughts Prompting (LoT), which utilizes constraint hierarchies to filter and refine candidate responses to a given query. By integrating these constraints, our method enables a structured retrieval process that enhances explainability and automation. Existing methods have explored various prompting techniques but often present overly generalized frameworks without delving into the nuances of prompts in multi-turn interactions. Our work addresses this gap by focusing on the hierarchical relationships among prompts. We demonstrate that the efficacy of thought hierarchy plays a critical role in developing efficient and interpretable retrieval algorithms. Leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs), LoT significantly improves the accuracy and comprehensibility of information retrieval tasks.

cs.CL↗