Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Beyond Guilt: Legal Judgment Prediction with Trichotomous Reasoning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Current legal AI models cannot return a 'not guilty' verdict; this paper builds a benchmark and a three-step reasoning method that lets them.

desk verdict First benchmark with innocent verdicts for legal judgment prediction; useful direction, but the synthetic counterfactuals cover only a narrow slice of real acquittals and the dataset is not yet released. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14588 v2 pith:TIB6W57H submitted 2024-12-19 cs.CL

Kepu Zhang , Haoyue Yang , Xu Tang , Weijie Yu , Jun Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords legaljudgmentpredictiontrichotomousreasoninginnocentverdictcounterfactualaugmentationlargelanguagemodelsbenchmarkdatasetChinesecriminallawretrieval-augmentedgeneration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that legal judgment prediction models fail in practice because they collapse the criminal-law decision into a single step: pick a charge. Standard criminal-law doctrine instead applies three sequential tests—whether the conduct satisfies the elements of the offense, whether there is a ground for justification such as self-defense, and whether the person is culpable—and a case that fails any one of them is innocent. To make this structure learnable, the paper constructs LJPIV, a benchmark that injects LLM-generated and manually verified "innocent" cases into three existing Chinese legal datasets. On that benchmark the best existing legal LLM scores below 0.3 F1, while a three-step prompt method and a fine-tuning variant raise in-domain F1 to about 67 and improve cross-domain verdict accuracy. The practical consequence is that an AI legal assistant that cannot return "not guilty" has little utility for real legal advice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the trichotomous dogmatics of criminal law, a three-step decision procedure: first, does the conduct satisfy the elements of the offense; second, is there a ground for justification such as self-defense or necessity; third, was the person culpable, meaning of responsible age and sound mind. Failure at any step yields an "innocent" verdict. The paper operationalizes this as a prediction rule in which an LLM first predicts the charge or innocence, then answers yes or no at the unlawfulness and culpability levels, with any "yes" at those levels overriding the predicted charge. Around this rule the paper builds LJPIV, a dataset whose counterfactual innocent cases are generated by injecting justification grounds into extracted fact sentences via retrieval-augmented generation and then filtered by an LLM self-check plus five rounds of manual verification.

What would settle it

Have a fresh panel of criminal-law experts independently review every "innocent" case in LJPIV and compare its verdict with the benchmark label; if a non-trivial share of innocence labels is reversed, the benchmark's labels—and the measured gains built on them—do not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the inability of legal large language models to predict innocence is not a model-size problem but a missing-reasoning-structure problem. Trained only on guilty-verdict corpora, a model never sees an acquittal, so it maps every fact description to a charge and overlooks self-defense, necessity, age limits, or mental incapacity. The paper shows that if training data is augmented with counterfactual cases that fail one of the three trichotomous levels—and if inference is organized as sequential checks of charge, justification, and responsibility—open-domain LLMs improve sharply, with accuracy on innocent verdicts rising well above the overall accuracy. The 1:1 guilty-to-innocent split in the benchmark makes this behavior measurable, and ablations show that both the unlawfulness and the culpability check each contribute independently to the gains.

Load-bearing premise

The whole benchmark rests on the premise that the LLM-generated counterfactual cases, after five rounds of spot-check manual review, are legally valid and representative examples of genuine acquittals—if those innocence labels are wrong, every measured improvement is built on artificial data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Legal LLMs fine-tuned only on guilty-verdict data cannot be trusted for innocence-sensitive tasks, and adding trichotomous reasoning stages is a direct fix rather than a prompt trick.
  • A three-step decision rule beats single-step prediction: Fine-Tuning-Tri raises in-domain F1 to about 67, and the ablation shows that removing the culpability check or the unlawfulness check each costs several F1 points.
  • Acquittal reasoning transfers across datasets: the same CAIL-fine-tuned model lifts cross-domain F1 from about 18 to 23 on ELAM and from about 8 to 20 on LeCaRD.
  • Zero-shot trichotomous prompting alone improves open-domain LLMs, raising the CAIL test accuracy of Qwen2 from 29.82 to 50.71, so even without fine-tuning the reasoning structure helps.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If LJPIV's labels generalize, the augmentation recipe could be ported to other legal families by replacing the three civil-law stages with the corresponding doctrine, for example precedent-based justifications in common law; the paper does not test this.
  • The benchmark's 1:1 guilty-to-innocent ratio is a design choice that inflates the apparent value of predicting innocence, since real dockets are guilty-heavy, so deployed systems would need recalibration to true base rates.
  • The paper's own limitations state that only 7B-parameter models and Chinese civil-law datasets were used, so claims about larger models or common-law jurisdictions remain open questions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LJPIV, a Chinese legal judgment prediction (LJP) benchmark that extends CAIL, ELAM, and LeCaRD with LLM-generated counterfactual 'innocent' verdicts. The construction pipeline has three stages: sentence extraction for trichotomous reasoning, injection of exonerating grounds at the offense-element, unlawfulness, and culpability levels, and quality verification via LLM self-check plus manual inspection. The paper then proposes zero-shot and fine-tuning methods that force an LLM to answer three sequential trichotomous questions, and reports experiments on Qwen2-7B-Instruct and Baichuan2-7B-Chat. The main findings are that existing legal LLMs achieve F1 below 0.3 on LJPIV, while the proposed Fine-Tuning-Tri raises in-domain F1 to about 67 on LJPIV-CAIL and improves cross-domain F1 from about 18 to 23 on LJPIV-ELAM and from about 8 to 20 on LJPIV-LeCaRD.

Significance. If the LJPIV labels are trustworthy, the paper makes a useful and fairly original contribution: it is among the first LJP benchmarks to include non-guilt verdicts, and it provides sentence-level trichotomous annotations rather than only charge labels. The three-stage augmentation pipeline is nontrivial, the ablations in Section 5.3 show that both the unlawfulness and culpability levels contribute, and the reproduced gap between legal LLMs and the proposed fine-tuned models is large. The methodological strengths include explicit attention to over-modification, a RAG-based grounding of the counterfactual edits in legal articles, and a multi-round manual verification process. However, the significance is conditional on the external validity of the synthetic innocence distribution, the availability of the dataset, and the reproducibility of the label-quality claims, none of which is fully established in the current manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Section 5.1.1] The innocent cases in LJPIV are constructed by injecting only three exonerating grounds: failure to satisfy offense elements, self-defense/necessity at the unlawfulness level, and three culpability scenarios. Real acquittals in Chinese criminal practice often rest on insufficient evidence or failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a category that cannot appear in LJPIV by construction. Consequently, the headline claim that existing legal LLMs 'automatically assign a charge' and cannot predict innocence, and the reported cross-domain gains on LJPIV-LeCaRD (F1 from 8.15 to 20.22 on 80 test cases), are established only with respect to the synthetic counterfactual distribution. The manuscript should either add a real-acquittal or human-written validation subset, or explicitly reframe the contribution as a stress-test benchmark for trichotomous reasoning rather than a representative sample of actual innocence.
  2. [Section 3.3] The manual verification protocol reports five rounds of random inspection (20% per round per annotator) with collaborative revision, but it does not report the number of samples rejected or revised in each round, any inter-annotator agreement statistic, or the legal qualifications of the annotators. The example of over-modification (a fracture incorrectly treated as a minor injury and changed to a scratch) shows that LLM-generated facts were materially edited during verification, yet the final dataset is not released: Table 5 lists URLs only for the source datasets and base models, not for LJPIV itself. Without releasing LJPIV and reporting label-quality statistics, the correctness of the benchmark cannot be independently audited.
  3. [Section 5.1.1] The fixed 1:1 guilty-to-innocent ratio and the 3:1:1 innocence-reason split are arbitrary design choices. Because the central negative result (legal LLMs with F1 below 0.3) is driven by the fact that these models never output the innocent class, the magnitude of the reported gap is sensitive to the innocence base rate; under a real-world distribution in which acquittals are rare, the comparison would look different. The paper should justify these ratios with reference to legal practice or report sensitivity analyses across different guilty-to-innocent ratios and innocence-reason distributions.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Section 5.2] The paper does not state which LLM was used for the counterfactual augmentation, nor whether that model is from the same family as the evaluated models. If the same model family (e.g., Qwen or Baichuan) generated both the training and test counterfactuals, a model fine-tuned on LJPIV-CAIL could be learning the generator's textual patterns rather than general trichotomous legal reasoning. Please report the augmentation model and include a robustness check in which test counterfactuals are generated by a different LLM or are replaced by human-written acquittal cases.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3 and Section 5.1.2] The naming is inconsistent: the text in Section 5.1.2 uses 'Fine-Tuning-Direct' and 'Fine-Tuning-Tri', but Table 3 and some later paragraphs use 'Fine-Tuing-Direct' and 'Fine-Tuing-Tri'; all occurrences should be unified.
  2. [Table 3] There are formatting errors in the table, e.g., '18.4619.80', '32.30 35.69', and '9,27'; these should be corrected and the table typeset consistently.
  3. [Figure 2] The caption for example (b) says 'the victim x2 self-defensed and caused one wound in the chin,' but the fact description states that x1 grabbed the knife and stabbed x2; the actor and the grammatical subject should be clarified.
  4. [Section 5.1.1] The evaluation section does not specify whether F1 is macro-averaged or weighted; this matters because the label space mixes a binary innocence decision with many charge classes, and the definition should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Table 2] The last column header is 'Avg_Sent_Num', but the surrounding text refers to 'Avg_Num_Sent'; the terminology should be made consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LJPIV shares its trichotomous schema between data construction and inference, but the reported predictions are genuine held-out evaluations and no fitted parameter or load-bearing self-citation is present.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained as an empirical benchmark and method study. The innocent labels in LJPIV are created by LLM-based augmentation and manually verified, while the zero-shot and fine-tuning methods use standard prompts and LoRA training. The final decision rule is an explicit, non-fitted rule derived from legal doctrine, not a parameter fitted to the test labels. Evaluation is conducted on held-out portions of CAIL and on ELAM/LeCaRD, so Fine-Tuning-Tri's F1 improvements are genuine in-domain and cross-domain measurements within the constructed benchmark. The alignment between the three-level annotation schema and the three-level inference prompts is a design choice; it does not make the model's predictions equal to the labels by construction, because the model must infer each level from free-text facts, and the reported error pattern (Type1 accuracy lower than Type2/Type3) shows the task is not vacuous. Self-citations (ELAM, Sun et al., Qin et al.) are dataset or related-work references and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or unverified self-cited premise is invoked. The main concerns—synthetic counterfactual innocence cases, the arbitrary 1:1 guilty/innocent ratio and 3:1:1 innocence-reason split, and omission of insufficient-evidence acquittals—are external-validity limitations rather than circular reductions. Section 7 states limitations about jurisdiction and 7B models but does not flag these benchmark-distribution issues; that is a correctness risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the synthetic counterfactual dataset and the chosen benchmark design ratios. These ratios are hand-chosen rather than fitted, but they shape all experimental conclusions. The paper introduces no new physical or formal entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Guilty to innocent ratio in LJPIV = 1:1
    The paper sets the balance of guilty and innocent samples to 1:1 (Section 5.1.1). This is an arbitrary design choice that heavily influences accuracy and F1 metrics; real court data has a much lower base rate of innocent verdicts.
  • Innocence reason distribution ratio = 3:1:1 (elements:unlawfulness:culpability)
    The paper balances the three types of innocent verdicts with a 3:1:1 ratio (Section 5.1.1). This choice determines how much weight each reasoning level has in the evaluation.
  • Proportion of samples converted to counterfactual innocent cases = 50%
    In Section 3.2, the authors randomly select 50% of samples from each dataset to inject grounds for justification. This proportion affects the diversity and difficulty of the innocent cases.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Trichotomous dogmatics correctly models how Chinese criminal law determines guilt
    The entire paper assumes that the three-step sequence of offense elements, unlawfulness, and culpability is the right legal framework. This is introduced in the Introduction and is a reasonable but non-trivial legal theory assumption.
  • domain assumption LLM-generated counterfactual samples, after manual verification, are legally valid innocent cases
    Section 3.3 describes the verification process, but the paper does not provide inter-annotator agreement or a full audit. The central experiments rely on these labels being correct.
  • domain assumption The original datasets CAIL, ELAM, and LeCaRD provide reliable factual and charge information for LJP
    The authors extend these datasets and do not question their underlying quality or the correctness of the original charge labels.
  • domain assumption Retrieved legal articles via RAG are accurate and relevant to the charges
    Section 3.2 uses the charge as a query to retrieve legal articles and sentencing standards. If retrieval is incomplete or wrong, the generated counterfactuals may be legally invalid.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Guilt: Legal Judgment Prediction with Trichotomous Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TIB6W57H

@misc{pith2026241214588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Guilt: Legal Judgment Prediction with Trichotomous Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TIB6W57H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14588}
}
read the original abstract

In legal practice, judges apply the trichotomous dogmatics of criminal law, sequentially assessing the elements of the offense, unlawfulness, and culpability to determine whether an individual's conduct constitutes a crime. Although current legal large language models (LLMs) show promising accuracy in judgment prediction, they lack trichotomous reasoning capabilities due to the absence of an appropriate benchmark dataset, preventing them from predicting innocent outcomes. As a result, every input is automatically assigned a charge, limiting their practical utility in legal contexts. To bridge this gap, we introduce LJPIV, the first benchmark dataset for Legal Judgment Prediction with Innocent Verdicts. Adhering to the trichotomous dogmatics, we extend three widely-used legal datasets through LLM-based augmentation and manual verification. Our experiments with state-of-the-art legal LLMs and novel strategies that integrate trichotomous reasoning into zero-shot prompting and fine-tuning reveal: (1) current legal LLMs have significant room for improvement, with even the best models achieving an F1 score of less than 0.3 on LJPIV; and (2) our strategies notably enhance both in-domain and cross-domain judgment prediction accuracy, especially for cases resulting in an innocent verdict.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14588 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of trichotomous dogmatics of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. DISC-Law (Yue et al., 2023) incorrectly predicts charges for non-guilty fact descriptions across the elements of the offense, unlawfulness, and culpability. The red parts represent actions that may lead to a guilty verdict, while the blue parts indicate acts or situations that result in contradictions or exoneration. nal offense—the first step in trichotomous dogmat￾ics—and thus lack the full trichotomous reasoning … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The prompt for trichotomous reasoning used in this study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Prediction accuracy for different case types on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

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. WuYu-EnvLE-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Environmental Law Enforcement

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across 14 environmental-law-enforcement tasks, current LLMs score 80-90+ on rule-bounded decisions but only 20-50 on contradiction monitoring and multi-evidence integration, and medium models nearly match frontier mod...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, Binyuan Hui, Luo Ji, Mei Li, Junyang Lin, Runji Lin, Dayiheng Liu, Gao Liu, Chengqiang Lu, Keming Lu, Jianxin Ma, Rui Men, Xingzhang Ren, Xuancheng Ren, Chuanqi Tan, Sinan Tan, Jianhong Tu, Peng Wang, Shijie Wang, Wei Wang, Shengguang Wu, Benfeng X...

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Andrew Blair-Stanek, Nils Holzenberger, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2023. Can gpt-3 perform statutory reasoning? In Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 22--31

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Ilias Chalkidis, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Nikolaos Aletras. 2019. Neural legal judgment prediction in english. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4317--4323

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Jonathan H Choi, Kristin E Hickman, Amy B Monahan, and Daniel Schwarcz. 2021. Chatgpt goes to law school. J. Legal Educ., 71:387

    2021

  6. [6]

    Jiaxi Cui, Zongjian Li, Yang Yan, Bohua Chen, and Li Yuan. 2023. Chatlaw: Open-source legal large language model with integrated external knowledge bases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16092

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Chenlong Deng, Zhicheng Dou, Yujia Zhou, Peitian Zhang, and Kelong Mao. 2024. An element is worth a thousand words: Enhancing legal case retrieval by incorporating legal elements. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024, pages 2354--2365

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Wentao Deng, Jiahuan Pei, Keyi Kong, Zhe Chen, Furu Wei, Yujun Li, Zhaochun Ren, Zhumin Chen, and Pengjie Ren. 2023. Syllogistic reasoning for legal judgment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 13997--14009

    work page 2023

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Markus Dirk Dubber. 2005. Theories of crime and punishment in german criminal law. The American journal of comparative law, 53(3):679--707

    2005

  2. [10]

    Roni A Elias. 2015. Three cheers for three tiers: Why the three-tier system maintains its legal validity and social benefits after granholm. DePaul Bus. & Comm. LJ, 14:209

    2015

  3. [11]

    Tao Fang, Shu Yang, Kaixin Lan, Derek F Wong, Jinpeng Hu, Lidia S Chao, and Yue Zhang. 2023. Is chatgpt a highly fluent grammatical error correction system? a comprehensive evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01746

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Zhiwei Fei, Xiaoyu Shen, Dawei Zhu, Fengzhe Zhou, Zhuo Han, Songyang Zhang, Kai Chen, Zongwen Shen, and Jidong Ge. 2023. Lawbench: Benchmarking legal knowledge of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16289

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Yi Feng, Chuanyi Li, and Vincent Ng. 2022. Legal judgment prediction: A survey of the state of the art. In IJCAI, pages 5461--5469

    2022

  6. [14]

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, and Haofen Wang. 2023. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Anne von der Lieth Gardner. 1987. An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning. MIT press

    1987

  8. [16]

    Saibo Geng, Martin Josifoski, Maxime Peyrard, and Robert West. 2023. Grammar-constrained decoding for structured nlp tasks without finetuning. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10932--10952

    2023

  9. [17]

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    u ttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt \

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich K \"u ttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt \"a schel, et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Proc...

    2020

  12. [20]

    Yinghui Li, Haojing Huang, Shirong Ma, Yong Jiang, Yangning Li, Feng Zhou, Hai-Tao Zheng, and Qingyu Zhou. 2023. On the (in) effectiveness of large language models for chinese text correction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09007

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Jinliang Lu, Chen Wang, and Jiajun Zhang. 2024. Diver: Large language model decoding with span-level mutual information verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02120

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Yougang Lyu, Zihan Wang, Zhaochun Ren, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Xiaozhong Liu, Yujun Li, Hongsong Li, and Hongye Song. 2022. Improving legal judgment prediction through reinforced criminal element extraction. Information Processing & Management, 59(1):102780

    2022

  15. [23]

    Yixiao Ma, Yunqiu Shao, Yueyue Wu, Yiqun Liu, Ruizhe Zhang, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2021. Lecard: a legal case retrieval dataset for chinese law system. In Proceedings of the 44th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, page...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Stuart S Nagel. 1963. Applying correlation analysis to case prediction. Tex. L. Rev., 42:1006

    1963

  17. [25]

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 3...

    2022

  18. [26]

    Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Instruction tuning with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Nicholas Pipitone and Ghita Houir Alami. 2024. Legalbench-rag: A benchmark for retrieval-augmented generation in the legal domain. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10343

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Weicong Qin, Zelin Cao, Weijie Yu, Zihua Si, Sirui Chen, and Jun Xu. 2024. Explicitly integrating judgment prediction with legal document retrieval: A law-guided generative approach. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in I...

    2024

  21. [29]

    N Reimers. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Stephen E Robertson, Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline M Hancock-Beaulieu, Mike Gatford, et al. 1995. Okapi at trec-3. Nist Special Publication Sp, 109:109

    1995

  23. [31]

    Jeffrey A Segal. 1984. Predicting supreme court cases probabilistically: The search and seizure cases, 1962-1981. American Political Science Review, 78(4):891--900

    1984

  24. [32]

    Dong Shu, Haoran Zhao, Xukun Liu, David Demeter, Mengnan Du, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2024. Lawllm: Law large language model for the us legal system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21065

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ruihao Shui, Yixin Cao, Xiang Wang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2023. A comprehensive evaluation of large language models on legal judgment prediction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 7337--7348

    2023

  26. [34]

    ZhongXiang Sun, Kepu Zhang, Weijie Yu, Haoyu Wang, and Jun Xu. 2024. Logic rules as explanations for legal case retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024), pages 10747--10759

    2024

  27. [35]

    Pengfei Wang, Ze Yang, Shuzi Niu, Yongfeng Zhang, Lei Zhang, and ShaoZhang Niu. 2018. Modeling dynamic pairwise attention for crime classification over legal articles. In the 41st international ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval, pages 485--494

    2018

  28. [36]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, R \'e mi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical met...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Shiguang Wu, Zhongkun Liu, Zhen Zhang, Zheng Chen, Wentao Deng, Wenhao Zhang, Jiyuan Yang, Zhitao Yao, Yougang Lyu, Xin Xin, Shen Gao, Pengjie Ren, Zhaochun Ren, and Zhumin Chen. 2023 a . fuzi.mingcha . https://github.com/irlab-sdu/fuzi.mingcha

    2023

  30. [38]

    Yiquan Wu, Siying Zhou, Yifei Liu, Weiming Lu, Xiaozhong Liu, Yating Zhang, Changlong Sun, Fei Wu, and Kun Kuang. 2023 b . Precedent-enhanced legal judgment prediction with llm and domain-model collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natura...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Chaojun Xiao, Xueyu Hu, Zhiyuan Liu, Cunchao Tu, and Maosong Sun. 2021. Lawformer: A pre-trained language model for chinese legal long documents. AI Open, 2:79--84

    2021

  32. [40]

    Chaojun Xiao, Haoxi Zhong, Zhipeng Guo, Cunchao Tu, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yansong Feng, Xianpei Han, Zhen Hu, Heng Wang, et al. 2018. Cail2018: A large-scale legal dataset for judgment prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.02478

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Aiyuan Yang, Bin Xiao, Bingning Wang, Borong Zhang, Ce Bian, Chao Yin, Chenxu Lv, Da Pan, Dian Wang, Dong Yan, et al. 2023. Baichuan 2: Open large-scale language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10305

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Fangyi Yu, Lee Quartey, and Frank Schilder. 2022 a . Legal prompting: Teaching a language model to think like a lawyer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.01326

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Weijie Yu, Zhongxiang Sun, Jun Xu, Zhenhua Dong, Xu Chen, Hongteng Xu, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022 b . Explainable legal case matching via inverse optimal transport-based rationale extraction. In Proceedings of the 45th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development ...

    2022

  36. [44]

    Shengbin Yue, Wei Chen, Siyuan Wang, Bingxuan Li, Chenchen Shen, Shujun Liu, Yuxuan Zhou, Yao Xiao, Song Yun, Wei Lin, et al. 2023. Disc-lawllm: Fine-tuning large language models for intelligent legal services. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11325

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Han Zhang and Zhicheng Dou. 2023. Case retrieval for legal judgment prediction in legal artificial intelligence. In China National Conference on Chinese Computational Linguistics, pages 434--448. Springer

    2023

  38. [46]

    Yating Zhang, Yexiang Wang, Fei Cheng, Sadao Kurohashi, et al. 2023. Reformulating domain adaptation of large language models as adapt-retrieve-revise. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03328

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Jie Zhao, Ziyu Guan, Cai Xu, Wei Zhao, and Enze Chen. 2022. Charge prediction by constitutive elements matching of crimes. In IJCAI, pages 4517--4523

    2022

  40. [48]

    Haoxi Zhong, Zhipeng Guo, Cunchao Tu, Chaojun Xiao, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2018. Legal judgment prediction via topological learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 3540--3549

    2018

  41. [49]

    Youchao Zhou, Heyan Huang, and Zhijing Wu. 2023. Boosting legal case retrieval by query content selection with large language models. In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval in the Asia Pacific Region...

    2023

  42. [50]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  43. [51]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.