Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Enabling Discriminative Reasoning in LLMs for Legal Judgment Prediction

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2407.01964 v4 pith:LSOGNVMB submitted 2024-07-02 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords judgmentlegalpredictionadaptllmschargesframeworkreasoning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Legal judgment prediction is essential for enhancing judicial efficiency. In this work, we identify that existing large language models (LLMs) underperform in this domain due to challenges in understanding case complexities and distinguishing between similar charges. To adapt LLMs for effective legal judgment prediction, we introduce the Ask-Discriminate-Predict (ADAPT) reasoning framework inspired by human judicial reasoning. ADAPT involves decomposing case facts, discriminating among potential charges, and predicting the final judgment. We further enhance LLMs through fine-tuning with multi-task synthetic trajectories to improve legal judgment prediction accuracy and efficiency under our ADAPT framework. Extensive experiments conducted on two widely-used datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our framework in legal judgment prediction, particularly when dealing with complex and confusing charges.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. When Large Language Models Meet Law: Dual-Lens Taxonomy, Technical Advances, and Ethical Governance

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A literature review that classifies LLM-for-law research using a dual-lens taxonomy of Toulmin argumentation components and legal practitioner roles.

Pith tools