用知识图谱约束大模型生成,提升印度司法AI的推理可信度
Falkor-IRAC: Graph-Constrained Generation for Verified Legal Reasoning in Indian Judicial AI
- 基于IRAC结构构建法律知识图谱,用图谱约束生成路径
- 验证器代理检测并拒绝虚构判例,判例引用准确率达100%
- 适合需要高可信法律推理的司法AI系统研发者
法律推理并非语义相似性检索。法院判决包含受约束的符号推理:先例传递、程序状态转移和依据法律条文的推论。这些特性无法由基于向量的检索增强生成(RAG)忠实表达。基于大模型的法律AI中,虚构先例、过时法条引用和无效推理链仍是顽疾,对印度等案件积压严重地区的司法可及性造成实际影响。本文提出Falkor-IRAC,一种面向印度司法AI的图谱约束生成框架,将最高法院与高等法院判决转化为带程序状态转移、先例关系和法条引用的IRAC节点结构,存储于FalkorDB实现低延迟智能体遍历。推理时,仅当生成答案能在图谱中找到有效支撑路径时才被接受,该校验由称作验证器代理(Verifier Agent)的可证伪性检查器完成。系统还将教义冲突作为首类输出而非隐式解决。通过图谱原生指标评估:引用锚定准确率、路径有效性率、虚构先例率和冲突检测率。在51份最高法院判决的原型语料上,验证器成功验证了完整查询的引用,并正确拒绝了伪造引用。与纯向量RAG基线的对比留待未来工作。配套的InIRAC数据集(500+条带有IRAC标注的印度法院判决)已公开发布。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Legal reasoning is not semantic similarity search. A court judgment encodes constrained symbolic reasoning: precedent propagation, procedural state transitions, and statute-bound inference. These are properties that vector-based retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) cannot faithfully represent. Hallucinated precedents, outdated statute citations, and unsupported reasoning chains remain persistent failure modes in LLM-based legal AI, with real consequences for access to justice in high-caseload jurisdictions such as India. This paper presents Falkor-IRAC, a graph-constrained generation framework for Indian legal AI that grounds generation in structured reasoning over an IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) knowledge graph. Judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts of India are ingested as IRAC node structures enriched with procedural state transitions, precedent relationships, and statutory references, stored in FalkorDB for low-latency agentic traversal. At inference time, LLM-generated answers are accepted only if a valid supporting path can be traced through the graph, a check performed by a falsifiability oracle called the Verifier Agent. The system also detects doctrinal conflicts as a first-class output rather than silently resolving them. Falkor-IRAC is evaluated using graph-native metrics: citation grounding accuracy, path validity rate, hallucinated precedent rate, and conflict detection rate. These metrics are argued to be more appropriate for legal reasoning evaluation than BLEU and ROUGE. On a proof-of-concept corpus of 51 Supreme Court judgments, the Verifier Agent correctly validated citations on completed queries and correctly rejected fabricated citations. Evaluation against vector-only RAG baselines is left for future work. The companion InIRAC dataset, 500+ structured Indian court judgments with IRAC annotations, is released alongside this paper.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。