Catala: Moving towards the future of legal expert systems
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sufficient explainability appears to be a pivotal feature of all constitutionally compliant AI systems in the tax domain.
“Accordingly, sufficient explainability appears to be a pivotal feature of all constitutionally compliant AI systems in the tax domain.141”
From Towards eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in Tax Law: The Need for a Minimum Legal Standard (2022) · cites this paper as [141]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 18
- Authors
- Huttner, L., & Merigoux, D.
- Affiliations
- Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (FR)
- Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Huttner, Liane
- Merigoux, Denis
- ORCID
- Merigoux, Denis
- Venue
- Artificial Intelligence and Law
- Published
- 2022-08-25
- ISSN
- 0924-8463 (ISSN-L)
- 1572-8382
- OpenAlex
- W4221142907
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 8.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hal.inria.fr
- Licence
- Locations
- Artificial Intelligence and Law (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Keywords
- legal expert systems, programming languages, GDPR compliance, algorithmic transparency, democratic transparency, software development process, pair programming, legislative amendment, legal compliance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
