法律 AI // 资讯总览
需要被持续追踪的
法律 AI 信号。
本期索引按监管、判例、实务与研究归档;可依主题或关键字定位已发布记录。
法律 AI // 资讯总览
本期索引按监管、判例、实务与研究归档;可依主题或关键字定位已发布记录。
原题: When Can a Machine Trust a Statute? A Survival Certificate for Machine-Extracted Legal Logic
研究指出,法规越来越多先被机器解析,但解析器并不一致:在密苏里州法规上,两个独立抽取器对数值阈值是否存在的漏报率达0.43。作者为机器抽取的法规语境构建Duquenne-Guigues蕴含基的被动生存证书:测量逐属性分歧、在1000次蒙特卡洛试验中回放,并以单侧Wilson 95%生存下限不低于0.95为认证标准;每条获认证蕴含附带前提跨度与最小反例。基于29,365个密苏里州章节和502个印度中央法章节,预注册留出门槛通过,但在一种全局部署误差模型下93.2%留出章节低于信息量下限,2×2析因归因于校准率迁移而非选择偏差。论文同时公开代码、数据产品与含一项撤回的审计轨迹。
展示来源全文,完整内容以原文页面为准。
arXiv:2609.01741v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Statutes are increasingly parsed by machines before people read them, and the parsers disagree: on Missouri's statutes, two independently written extractors diverge on numeric-threshold presence at a false-negative rate of 0.43. We ask what formal logic survives such noise. We build a passive survival certificate for the Duquenne-Guigues implication basis of machine-extracted statutory contexts: per-attribute inter-extractor disagreement is measured, replayed against the basis in 1,000 Monte Carlo trials, and an implication is certified only when a one-sided Wilson 95% lower bound on survival reaches 0.95; every certified implication carries premise spans and a minimal counterexample. On 29,365 Missouri sections and 502 Indian central-Act sections, the preregistered held-out gate passes (10 statute families across 7 Titles exact; 16 across 11 with 5% tolerance), yet under one globally deployed error model 93.2% of held-out chapters fall below the informativeness floor, and a 2x2 factorial assigns that to calibration-rate transfer, not selection. The certificate is usable but fragile: deploy it per-chapter-calibrated or error-tolerant. Code, data products, and the audit trail, including one retracted claim, are released.
当机器先于读者解析成文法且抽取结果互相冲突时,何种法律逻辑可被判为稳健并可审计。
文书与研报规范引注
《机器如何采信法条抽取逻辑》(来源: arXiv cs.CL,发布日期: 2026/09/15,访问链接: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.01741)