Z. Hóu
Publications
Which Changes Matter? Towards Trustworthy Legal AI via Relevance-Sensitive Evaluation and Solver-Grounded Reasoning
Legal reasoning requires distinguishing changes that matter from those that do not. Legal AI should remain stable under legally irrelevant perturbations, but should change when perturbations alter legally material points. We formulate this requirement as a legal-relevance-sensitive evaluation problem: LLMs should only be sensitive to the legally relevant change. We introduce a unified evaluation suite covering should-change and should-not-change evaluation across judicial fairness, robustness, and statute-confusion scenarios. Our evaluation shows that existing legal LLMs are systematically sensitive to legally irrelevant variations and often fail to distinguish related legal elements and statutory rules. To mitigate these failures, we present LexGuard, an adversarial multi-agent framework grounded in formal reasoning. LexGuard formalizes statutes into executable constraints, uses adversarial agents to extract competing fact-statute arguments, and invokes SMT solvers to verify legal satisfaction and logical consistency. Experiments show that LexGuard improves legal reasoning reliability by reducing vulnerability to manipulative framing, improving disambiguation among similar statutes, limiting the influence of legally irrelevant attributes, and increasing consistency under benign reformulations. We show that legal trustworthiness requires not only accuracy, but calibrated sensitivity to legally material changes.
Uncertainty Reasoning with Large Language Models for Explainable Disease Diagnosis
Clinical decision-making requires reasoning over incomplete, imprecise, and linguistically expressed patient narratives. While large language models (LLMs) excel at extracting latent information from natural language, they lack the verifiability and interpretability essential for trustworthy medical AI. We propose a neuro-symbolic reasoning framework that aligns LLMs with formal logic to enable explainable and formally verifiable medical diagnosis. Patient descriptions and clinical guidelines are embedded into a neural knowledge base, where LLMs extract structured medical entities, temporal relations, and fuzzy symptom patterns, which are decoded into a symbolic knowledge base expressed in fuzzy logic and declarative rules. We perform two-stage reasoning: (1) inductive symbolic generalization to capture diagnostic patterns from encoded narratives, and (2) inference verification via a logic programming engine to derive and validate diagnoses consistent with clinical standards. Each symptom is treated as a fuzzy predicate with probabilistic weights, and inference paths are auditable, adjustable, and compatible with physician feedback. Unlike purely statistical methods, our system supports iterative refinement: misalignment between LLM-generated diagnoses and ground truth can be traced, explained, and corrected through formal rules. By combining logic-based transparency, LLM adaptability, and probabilistic robustness, the framework enables human-aligned healthcare inference with strong generalization and verifiable, step-by-step reasoning chains. We validate our framework on public benchmarks, demonstrating effective reconciliation of symbolic reasoning and LLMs with real-world clinical narratives. Results show performance comparable to state-of-the-art LLMs, while additionally providing interpretable reasoning paths and formally verifiable diagnostic conclusions.