Falkor-IRAC: Graph-Constrained Generation for Verified Legal Reasoning in Indian Judicial AI
Open accessAbstract
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 Hallucinated precedents, outdated statute citations, and unsupported reasoning chains remain persistent failure modes in LLM-based legal AI, with real consequences for access to justice in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 reasoni…
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- [1][1] Malik, V., Sanjay, R., Nigam, S. K., Ghosh, K., Guha, S. K., Bhattacharya, A., & Modi, A. (2021, August). ILDC for CJPE: Indian legal documents corpus for court judgment prediction and explanation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) (pp. 4046 -4062) -
- [7][7] Song, D., Bonifazi, G., Schilder, F., and Schwarz, J.R. (2026). Knowledge Graph-Assisted LLM Post-Training for Enhanced Legal Reasoning. arXiv:2601.13806. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.13806 - · arXiv
- [8][8] Han, S. (2026). Trustworthy Legal Reasoning: A Comprehensive Survey. Preprints.org. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202602.0870 -
- [10][10] Lewis, P. et al. (2020). Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. NeurIPS 2020. -
- [11][11] Asai, A. et al. (2023). Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through SelfReflection. arXiv:2310.11511. - · arXiv
- [12][12] Anthropic. (2022). Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback. arXiv:2212.08073. - · arXiv
- [13][13] Awasekar, D., & Lobo, L. M. R. J. (2026). NyayaSakhi -SWATI: India's First Statute -Aligned, Retrieval-Augmented LAMP² 4.0 AI-Powered Digital Legal Companion for Victims of DomesticViolence. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations , 601-606. https://journaleet.in/index.php/jeet/article/view/3668 -
- [14][14] Van Ruymbeke, S., Baeck, J., Mulier, K., & Demeester, T. (2026). Artificial intelligence in the judiciary: a systematic literature review on the practical applications. Information & Communications Technology Law , 1 -33. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2026.2644818 - · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Untitled work
Ovcharov, V. (2026) · arXiv
- Authors
- Bose, J.
- Corresponding author
- Bose, Joy
- ORCID
- Bose, Joy
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2605.14665
- OpenAlex
- W7161254461
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Keywords
- legal reasoning, knowledge graphs, hallucination detection, retrieval-augmented generation, Supreme Court of India, legal AI
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