arXiv Computation and Language By Tom\'a\v{s} Knap, Ivana Kvapil\'ikov\'a, Jan \v{C}ern\'y, Kl\'ara Bendov\'a, Jarom\'ir \v{S}avelka, Vojt\v{e}ch Pour, Jakub Dr\'apal

Unlocking Criminal Court Decisions: Flexible Information Extraction for Empirical Legal Research

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 22

AnnoCaseLaw: Legal Annotation Benchmark of Civil Negligence

arXiv:2503.00128v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Language models offer a way to scale costly, labour-intensive expert annotation, but their ability to reproduce expert judgements remains uncertain...

By Rilton Franzone, Magnus Sesodia, Alina Petrova, John Armour, Thomas Lukasiewicz, Oana-Maria Camburu, Puneet K. Dokania, Philip Torr, Christian Schroeder de Witt, Fabio J. Fehr
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1

JPO: Juris Policy Optimization for Structured Legal Reasoning in Criminal Judgment Prediction

The paper introduces Juris Policy Optimization (JPO), a post‑training framework designed to enhance structured legal reasoning in Chinese criminal judgment prediction. JPO first trains models with teacher‑generated rationales to guide a four‑step reasoning process, then applies reinforcement learning using a composite reward that balances prediction accuracy, reasoning completeness, and cross‑step consistency. Experiments on several open‑source language models and three Chinese legal benchmarks demonstrate that JPO consistently outperforms both supervised fine‑tuning and standard reinforcement learning baselines in terms of judgment prediction and reasoning quality.

By Zhaolu Kang, Yantao Liu, Tailong Luo, Leqi Zheng, Lei Wei, Chenghua Zhu, Junhao Gong, Jiachen Qian, Eric Hanchen Jiang, Jiaxin Liu, Yuan Wang, Hao Zhang, Zixia Wang, Rong Fu, Zheng Lin, Richeng Xuan, Zhichao Hu
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 17

Before the Arrest: Benchmarking LLMs on Criminal Profiling from Incomplete Evidence

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.

arXiv AI
Oct 2

Legal text classification in Korean sexual offense cases: from traditional machine learning to large language models with XAI insights

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.

By Jeongmin Lee
arXiv AI
Sep 3

OBJECTION! Lawyer Agents Mitigate Guilty Bias in Legal Judgment Prediction

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.

By Jaehoon Jeong, Jay-Yoon Lee