{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2020:VM5NITPMQP2BNRCOPTQ7TOQP7J","short_pith_number":"pith:VM5NITPM","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"ab3ad44dec83f416c44e7ce1f9ba0ffa7d54e66799d4bf9123404d45b5c08cfc","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2005.05257","version":3},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"A Dataset for Statutory Reasoning in Tax Law Entailment and Question Answering","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"cs.CL","authors_text":"Andrew Blair-Stanek, Benjamin Van Durme, Nils Holzenberger","submitted_at":"2020-05-11T16:54:42Z","abstract_excerpt":"Legislation can be viewed as a body of prescriptive rules expressed in natural language. The application of legislation to facts of a case we refer to as statutory reasoning, where those facts are also expressed in natural language. Computational statutory reasoning is distinct from most existing work in machine reading, in that much of the information needed for deciding a case is declared exactly once (a law), while the information needed in much of machine reading tends to be learned through distributional language statistics. To investigate the performance of natural language understanding"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2005.05257","kind":"arxiv","version":3},"metadata":{"license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","primary_cat":"cs.CL","submitted_at":"2020-05-11T16:54:42Z","cross_cats_sorted":[],"title_canon_sha256":"90269cb7eabb0da8975c4fd3c3b4796d46a4c4a8bda334a9459c93541d90434d","abstract_canon_sha256":"cdf81708a6470d05f2e4912be3a4dbf62872255132c8a7170f8d343b3eb9008b"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T01:26:41.155010Z","signature_b64":"kpn1Sw3KZfDG7XWC7vBY448wVIzVK/wZRYjY0Qk3NMqyi3G2lWEaO+IvW7PcJk8s5+lYwBB8gqju61qY9/VIBQ==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"ab3ad44dec83f416c44e7ce1f9ba0ffa7d54e66799d4bf9123404d45b5c08cfc","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T01:26:41.154536Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T01:26:41.154536Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"A Dataset for Statutory Reasoning in Tax Law Entailment and Question Answering","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"cs.CL","authors_text":"Andrew Blair-Stanek, Benjamin Van Durme, Nils Holzenberger","submitted_at":"2020-05-11T16:54:42Z","abstract_excerpt":"Legislation can be viewed as a body of prescriptive rules expressed in natural language. The application of legislation to facts of a case we refer to as statutory reasoning, where those facts are also expressed in natural language. Computational statutory reasoning is distinct from most existing work in machine reading, in that much of the information needed for deciding a case is declared exactly once (a law), while the information needed in much of machine reading tends to be learned through distributional language statistics. To investigate the performance of natural language understanding"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2005.05257","kind":"arxiv","version":3},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2005.05257/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2005.05257","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:26:41.154590+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2005.05257v3","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:26:41.154590+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2005.05257","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:26:41.154590+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"VM5NITPMQP2B","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:26:41.154590+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"VM5NITPMQP2BNRCO","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:26:41.154590+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"VM5NITPM","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:26:41.154590+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":4,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.16118","citing_title":"Know Your Limits : On the Faithfulness of LLMs as Solvers and Autoformalizers in Legal Reasoning","ref_index":13,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.08932","citing_title":"From Statute to Control Flow: Span-Grounded Deontic Trees for Defeasible Scope Parsing","ref_index":16,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.19815","citing_title":"LP-Eval: Rubric and Dataset for Measuring the Quality of Legal Proposition Generation","ref_index":15,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2604.19895","citing_title":"Learning When Not to Decide: A Framework for Overcoming Factual Presumptuousness in AI Adjudication","ref_index":19,"is_internal_anchor":false}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/VM5NITPMQP2BNRCOPTQ7TOQP7J","json":"https://pith.science/pith/VM5NITPMQP2BNRCOPTQ7TOQP7J.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/VM5NITPMQP2BNRCOPTQ7TOQP7J/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/VM5NITPMQP2BNRCOPTQ7TOQP7J/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/VM5NITPM"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/VM5NITPMQP2BNRCOPTQ7TOQP7J","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/VM5NITPMQP2BNRCOPTQ7TOQP7J.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/VM5NITPM","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2005.05257&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/VM5NITPMQP2BNRCOPTQ7TOQP7J/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/VM5NITPMQP2BNRCOPTQ7TOQP7J/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/VM5NITPMQP2BNRCOPTQ7TOQP7J/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/VM5NITPMQP2BNRCOPTQ7TOQP7J/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/VM5NITPMQP2BNRCOPTQ7TOQP7J/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/VM5NITPMQP2BNRCOPTQ7TOQP7J/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/VM5NITPMQP2BNRCOPTQ7TOQP7J/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T01:26:41.154590+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T01:26:41.154590+00:00"}