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.
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.
The paper evaluates legal text classification models for Korean sexual offense cases, comparing traditional machine learning, large language models, and fine‑tuned domain models. Fine‑tuned KLUE‑BERT achieved the highest accuracy of 99.3%, outperforming GPT‑3.5, GPT‑4.0, and other traditional approaches. Explainable AI techniques were used to analyze predictions, revealing linguistic features that influence decisions and highlighting limitations in capturing subtle textual cues, especially in real‑world KICS data.
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: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:2605. 29738v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Legal NLP benchmarks overwhelmingly evaluate a single language or aggregate tasks that differ fundamentally across jurisdictions, making cross-lingual comparison impossible.
The paper introduces OBJECTION, an inference-time pipeline that adds an Adversarial Lawyer Agent to each of the three reasoning steps—offense, unlawfulness, and culpability—in legal judgment prediction models. By actively injecting defense arguments, the agent challenges the model’s default assumption of guilt, which is common in datasets biased toward guilty outcomes. Using a new Natural Innocent dataset of 3.4k real cases, OBJECTION reduces the False Guilty Rate from 82.93% to 16.69%, demonstrating significant improvement in substantive legal reasoning.
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.
The paper critiques the common practice of stopword removal in legal text analysis, showing that standard stoplists actually degrade performance on binary classification tasks involving Supreme Court opinions. By exhaustively testing the removal of each of ~18,500 candidate words, the authors find that no stoplist—generic or optimized—outperforms a no‑removal baseline, and that models cannot predict which words are beneficial to remove. The study argues that inherited preprocessing defaults can distort the doctrinal and ideological signals that legal scholars aim to recover, calling into question the validity of such practices.
arXiv:2605. 21071v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The rapid progress of large language models (LLMs) is shifting semantic search toward a question-answering paradigm, where users ask questions and LLMs generate responses.
arXiv:2606. 18699v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities across diverse tasks, yet their performance on jurisdiction-specific legal reasoning remains underexplored.
The paper introduces the Profiling, Investigation, and Judgment (PIJ) benchmark, which contains 2,500 real homicide cases from five countries to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on pre‑arrest criminal investigation tasks. It assesses LLMs across criminal profiling, crime process reconstruction, and sentence prediction, revealing that performance drops as tasks require more implicit reasoning about unknown suspect profiles. The study finds that LLMs lag behind human experts, especially on inferential tasks like motivation and victim‑offender relationships, and exhibit biases in gender, age, and motive attribution.
The paper introduces the Profiling, Investigation, and Judgment (PIJ) benchmark, which contains 2,500 real homicide cases from five countries to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on pre‑arrest criminal investigation tasks. It assesses LLMs across criminal profiling, crime process reconstruction, and sentence prediction, revealing that performance drops as tasks require more implicit reasoning about unknown suspect profiles. The study finds that LLMs lag behind human experts, especially in inferential categories like motivation and victim‑offender relationships, and exhibit biases in gender, age, and motive attribution.