Cited but Not Consulted: A Counterfactual Audit of Legal Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness
What it is
This paper investigates whether large language models actually base their legal verdicts on the statutes or precedents they cite. It uses a counterfactual method where the named legal authority is swapped for an unrelated one to see if the model's decision changes, revealing a significant gap between citation accuracy and actual logical dependence.
The problem it solves
The assumption that naming a legal authority in a chain-of-thought response proves the model's verdict is logically derived from that authority, which this research shows is frequently false.
What you could use it for
- Auditing the reliability of LLM-generated legal explanations
- Evaluating the robustness of legal AI against adversarial prompt injection
- Assessing the validity of using LLMs for compliance or audit artifacts
Read the source ↗Back to the library →
Summary written by an AI model from the source; check the source before you rely on it.