Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending2 min read

Where Do Legal Factors Live in LLMs?

Summary

arXiv:2610.28799v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In case-based legal reasoning, legal professionals identify legally significant fact patterns in a new dispute and compare them with those of decided cases. In AI & Law, HYPO dimensions and CATO factors represent these patterns symbolically, organizing expert knowledge distilled from case narratives as explicit, structured, interpretable, and auditable legal concepts and relations that support case comparison, legal argument, and precedent-based reasoning. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for legal tasks, yet their internal organization of legal knowledge remains difficult to trace. We investigate whether LLMs form internal representations corresponding to all 26 CATO factors. Two research questions examine linear decodabil…

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Li Zhang, Kevin Ashley
Where Do Legal Factors Live in LLMs?
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 20 Oct 2026]

Title:Where Do Legal Factors Live in LLMs?

View a PDF of the paper titled Where Do Legal Factors Live in LLMs?, by Li Zhang and 1 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:In case-based legal reasoning, legal professionals identify legally significant fact patterns in a new dispute and compare them with those of decided cases. In AI & Law, HYPO dimensions and CATO factors represent these patterns symbolically, organizing expert knowledge distilled from case narratives as explicit, structured, interpretable, and auditable legal concepts and relations that support case comparison, legal argument, and precedent-based reasoning. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for legal tasks, yet their internal organization of legal knowledge remains difficult to trace. We investigate whether LLMs form internal representations corresponding to all 26 CATO factors. Two research questions examine linear decodability and sparse localization with sparse autoencoders. Experiments cover three open models, Qwen3-1.7B, Qwen3-8B, and Gemma-2 2B, supported by cross-model comparison and human audit of controlled natural-language passages. Results show that all 26 factors are linearly decodable in all three models. Single-feature sparse readouts cover the complete factor catalog, with best-layer test AUCs ranging from 0.86 to 1.00. Five selected features approach full-vector readout performance. We report 78 model-specific layer-feature coordinates, one for each factor in each model. Together, these results show that information corresponding to expert-defined legal factors can be read from the internal activations of LLMs processing legal narratives. By locating these readouts, our study connects legal language and the symbolic abstractions of HYPO and CATO to learned internal representations.

Comments: 12 pages, 3 figures, 2 tables. Accepted at JURIX 2026, the 39th International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

MSC classes: 68T50

ACM classes: I.2.7; I.2.4

Cite as: arXiv:2610.28799 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.28799v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.28799

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Li Zhang [view email] [v1] Tue, 20 Oct 2026 18:24:37 UTC (585 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Where Do Legal Factors Live in LLMs?, by Li Zhang and 1 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2610.28799v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In case-based legal reasoning, legal professionals identify legally significant fact patterns in a new dispute and compare them wit…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.