DeonticBench: A Benchmark for Reasoning over Rules

Deontic reasoning is the task of answering questions by applying explicit rules and policies to case-specific facts, for example computing tax liability under a statute or determining the outcome of an immigration appeal. A key technical challenge for LLM-based deontic reasoning is that the relevant ruleset can be long and cross-referenced, so models may still fail to locate the rules needed for a particular reasoning step. We introduce Deontic Agentic Reasoning (DAR), an agentic reasoning setup in which the model interacts with the statutes on demand. We evaluate DAR under multiple harnesses on hard subsets of DeonticBench. Across these settings, we find that agentic harnesses can push the frontier on deontic reasoning tasks, but improvements are not uniform: weaker models often degrade on numerical tasks while consuming far more tokens.

We study reasoning in Rule-Governed Decision Tasks (RGDTs), where models apply external rules to case facts and justify decisions, as required in policy, contract, and compliance settings. Beyond the deductive capability emphasized by standard mathematical and logical reasoning tasks, RGDTs require interpreting rules and their applicability, assessing conditions from evidence, combining judgments under rules and exceptions, and providing checkable justifications. These demands motivate a benchmark assessing both decisions and their stated grounds. We introduce RGDT-Bench, providing 202.1K condition-level supervision slots across four task tracks and eight supported task-probe combinations that vary access to supporting information. Label-blind extraction and deterministic checks produce labels for warrant completeness: source-referenced coverage and consistency of stated decision grounds. The benchmark attributes failures to four process layers: rule use, condition, evidence, and aggregation, and checks the final outcome. Among evaluable correct responses, warrant incompleteness averages 40.2% across six evaluated LLMs and supported task-probe combinations. Such warrant incompleteness poses potential safety risks and remains difficult to detect: the best of seventeen existing evaluators reaches only 57.69% (random: 50%) task-averaged area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). To address this difficulty, we train a simple reward model with warrant supervision. It achieves 69.24% task-averaged AUROC among correct answers, exceeding the matched outcome-supervised baseline by 10.37 pp (percentage points) and the best existing evaluator by 11.55 pp. Beyond completeness assessment, the model outperforms both outcome-supervised baselines across nearly all response-selection comparisons, supporting RGDT-Bench's warrant supervision for RGDT reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to specialized domains, where effective use of domain expertise often requires reasoning over complex rules in concrete scenarios. However, existing benchmarks only partially evaluate this capability, as they either focus on output-level instruction constraints or overlook the distinct roles that rules play in scenario reasoning. To address these gaps, this paper introduces RuleWeaver, a benchmark construction framework for evaluating rule-centered scenario reasoning. RuleWeaver starts from corpus-derived IF-THEN Meta Rules, progressively augments them into complex rules, and composes these rules into rule-centered scenario QA instances. Beyond final-answer correctness, RuleWeaver further supports process-level evaluation through rubric-based answer quality, rule recall, and rule precision. Experiments on 11 representative LLMs show that current models still struggle with complex rule-centered scenario reasoning, with even the best-performing model achieving only around 50% of the maximum rubric score. We make our code and dataset available here: https://github.com/SharkSpicy-NLP/RuleWeaver.