CrimeNER: Curated Dataset and Methods for Research and Investigation in Language Intelligence
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2603. 02150v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The extraction of critical information from crime-related documents is a crucial task for law enforcement agencies.
arXiv:2607. 14800v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present CrimeNER Demo, an AI-powered platform that enables us to extract general crime-related information from documents and classify them into entity types with two levels of granularity.
arXiv:2606. 19710v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Court proceedings contain valuable evidence about human smuggling networks, but this information is often buried within unstructured, jargon-heavy legal documents.
The paper presents an LLM-based pipeline for extracting structured data from criminal court decisions, using attribute exploration, text span extraction, and value normalization guided by expert-refinable annotation instructions. Evaluated on DUI and DDB traffic offenses, refining instructions improved extraction accuracy from 52% to 70% for DUI and increased annotator agreement. The study highlights that model consistency does not guarantee correctness and that disagreements can uncover ambiguous instructions.
arXiv:2609.22529v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: International law provides the normative framework through which states coordinate action, regulate armed conflict, and protect human rights, yet its t...
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.