arXiv:2608. 10400v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: What if judges already behave like algorithms?
arXiv:2506. 03411v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Strategic litigation involves bringing a case to court with the goal of having an impact beyond resolving the particular dispute at hand.
arXiv:2606. 23716v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Legal AI benchmark research frequently invokes the assumption that large language models can improve access to justice, including for people who cannot access lawyers in order to understand and exercise their legal rights.
arXiv:2607. 01256v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Overwhelmed courts in the United States review millions of default judgments each year.
arXiv:2607. 23888v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In the United States, artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly deployed amid limited federal regulation.
arXiv:2608. 08830v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Legal Statute Prediction (LSP) involves automatically identifying relevant legal statutes given factual descriptions in legal documents, typically framed as a multi-label classification task within natural language processing and information retrieval research.
Legal outcome prediction must disentangle objective case facts from adjudicative context. Merit-based rulings rely on factual evidence while technical disposals may hinge on judicial discretion.
arXiv:2603. 22973v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Applying computational methods to law at scale requires separating genuine legal reasoning from surface similarity.
arXiv:2606. 06679v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Court judgments are central to legal practice and jurisprudence, yet discourse analysis of Hong Kong judgments has received limited attention, owing largely to the absence of expert-annotated corpora.
arXiv:2608. 14610v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Legal reasoning tasks such as legal judgment prediction (LJP) require identifying the temporally correct version of the law governing a case -- a capability we term temporal applicable-law determination.
arXiv:2606. 17220v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Legal case retrieval remains challenging due to the complexity of legal language and the need for precise lexical alignment between queries and relevant cases.
arXiv:2605. 25240v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Two methodologies dominate current practices of benchmarking: rubric-based scoring evaluates items against predefined criteria, whereas comparative judgment elicits pairwise preferences between outputs.
arXiv:2607. 04261v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is constrained by its reliance on post-hoc judicial materials, increasing the likelihood that models perform retrospective classification rather than true forecasting.