LegalChainReasoner: A Legal Chain-guided Framework for Criminal Judicial Opinion Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.00783v1
• Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2025 10:22:47 GMT
• Title: LegalChainReasoner: A Legal Chain-guided Framework for Criminal Judicial Opinion Generation
• Authors: Weizhe Shi, Qiqi Wang, Yihong Pan, Qian Liu, Kaiqi Zhao,
• Abstract summary: We propose a new LegalAI task: Judicial Opinion Generation.<n>It simultaneously produces both legal reasoning and sentencing decisions.<n>Our approach ensures flexible knowledge injection and end-to-end opinion generation.
• Score: 6.754329137382816
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: A criminal judicial opinion represents the judge's disposition of a case, including the decision rationale and sentencing. Automatically generating such opinions can assist in analyzing sentencing consistency and provide judges with references to similar past cases. However, current research typically approaches this task by dividing it into two isolated subtasks: legal reasoning and sentencing prediction. This separation often leads to inconsistency between the reasoning and predictions, failing to meet real-world judicial requirements. Furthermore, prior studies rely on manually curated knowledge to enhance applicability, yet such methods remain limited in practical deployment. To address these limitations and better align with legal practice, we propose a new LegalAI task: Judicial Opinion Generation, which simultaneously produces both legal reasoning and sentencing decisions. To achieve this, we introduce LegalChainReasoner, a framework that applies structured legal chains to guide the model through comprehensive case assessments. By integrating factual premises, composite legal conditions, and sentencing conclusions, our approach ensures flexible knowledge injection and end-to-end opinion generation. Experiments on two real-world and open-source Chinese legal case datasets demonstrate that our method outperforms baseline models.

Related papers

• LegalOne: A Family of Foundation Models for Reliable Legal Reasoning [54.57434222018289]
  We present LegalOne, a family of foundational models specifically tailored for the Chinese legal domain.<n>LegalOne is developed through a comprehensive three-phase pipeline designed to master legal reasoning.<n>We publicly release the LegalOne weights and the LegalKit evaluation framework to advance the field of Legal AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T10:18:32Z)
• Dissecting Judicial Reasoning in U.S. Copyright Damage Awards [0.21485350418225238]
  judicial reasoning in copyright damage awards poses a core challenge for computational legal analysis.<n>Federal courts follow the 1976 Copyright Act, their interpretations and factor weightings vary widely across jurisdictions.<n>This research introduces a novel discourse-based Large Language Model (LLM) methodology that integrates Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) with an agentic workflow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-14T13:09:16Z)
• ReaKase-8B: Legal Case Retrieval via Knowledge and Reasoning Representations with LLMs [37.688405624086315]
  A novel ReaKase-8B framework is proposed to leverage extracted legal facts, legal issues, legal relation triplets and legal reasoning for effective legal case retrieval.<n>Experiments on two benchmark datasets from COLIEE 2022 and COLIEE 2023 demonstrate that our knowledge and reasoning augmented embeddings substantially improve retrieval performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T06:35:36Z)
• Capturing Legal Reasoning Paths from Facts to Law in Court Judgments using Knowledge Graphs [0.0]
  Court judgments reveal how legal rules have been interpreted and applied to facts.<n>Existing automated approaches for capturing legal reasoning do not accurately trace how facts relate to legal norms.<n>This paper builds a legal knowledge graph from 648 Japanese administrative court decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-24T12:51:40Z)
• Incorporating Legal Logic into Deep Learning: An Intelligent Approach to Probation Prediction [9.039384880538083]
  We propose a novel approach that integrates legal logic into deep learning models for probation prediction.<n>First, we construct a specialized probation dataset that includes fact descriptions and probation legal elements.<n>Second, we design a distinct probation prediction model named the Multi-Task Dual-Theory Probation Prediction Model (MT-DT)<n>Third, our experiments on the probation dataset demonstrate that the MT-DT model outperforms baseline models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-17T08:28:07Z)
• RLJP: Legal Judgment Prediction via First-Order Logic Rule-enhanced with Large Language Models [58.69183479148083]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is a pivotal task in legal AI.<n>Existing LJP models integrate judicial precedents and legal knowledge for high performance.<n>But they neglect legal reasoning logic, a critical component of legal judgments requiring rigorous logical analysis.<n>This paper proposes a rule-enhanced legal judgment prediction framework based on first-order logic (FOL) formalism and comparative learning (CL)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T14:50:21Z)
• AppealCase: A Dataset and Benchmark for Civil Case Appeal Scenarios [47.83822985839837]
  We present the AppealCase dataset, consisting of 10,000 pairs of real-world, matched first-instance and second-instance documents across 91 categories of civil cases.<n>The dataset also includes detailed annotations along five dimensions central to appellate review: judgment reversals, reversal reasons, cited legal provisions, claim-level decisions, and whether there is new information in the second instance.<n> Experimental results reveal that all current models achieve less than 50% F1 scores on the judgment reversal prediction task, highlighting the complexity and challenge of the appeal scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T10:50:33Z)
• Enabling Discriminative Reasoning in LLMs for Legal Judgment Prediction [23.046342240176575]
  We introduce the Ask-Discriminate-Predict (ADAPT) reasoning framework inspired by human reasoning. ADAPT involves decomposing case facts, discriminating among potential charges, and predicting the final judgment. Experiments conducted on two widely-used datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our framework in legal judgment prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T05:43:15Z)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• LegalDuet: Learning Fine-grained Representations for Legal Judgment Prediction via a Dual-View Contrastive Learning [22.59356182108378]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is a fundamental task of legal artificial intelligence, aiming to automatically predict the judgment outcomes of legal cases.<n>Existing LJP models primarily focus on identifying legal triggers within criminal fact descriptions.<n>We propose LegalDuet, which continuously pretrains language models to learn a more tailored embedding space for representing legal cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-27T10:28:27Z)
• Multi-Defendant Legal Judgment Prediction via Hierarchical Reasoning [49.23103067844278]
  We propose the task of multi-defendant LJP, which aims to automatically predict the judgment results for each defendant of multi-defendant cases. Two challenges arise with the task of multi-defendant LJP: (1) indistinguishable judgment results among various defendants; and (2) the lack of a real-world dataset for training and evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-10T04:46:30Z)
• Exploiting Contrastive Learning and Numerical Evidence for Confusing Legal Judgment Prediction [46.71918729837462]
  Given the fact description text of a legal case, legal judgment prediction aims to predict the case's charge, law article and penalty term. Previous studies fail to distinguish different classification errors with a standard cross-entropy classification loss. We propose a moco-based supervised contrastive learning to learn distinguishable representations. We further enhance the representation of the fact description with extracted crime amounts which are encoded by a pre-trained numeracy model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-15T15:53:56Z)
• Legal Judgment Prediction with Multi-Stage CaseRepresentation Learning in the Real Court Setting [25.53133777558123]
  We introduce a novel dataset from real courtrooms to predict the legal judgment in a reasonably encyclopedic manner. An extensive set of experiments with a large civil trial data set shows that the proposed model can more accurately characterize the interactions among claims, fact and debate for legal judgment prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T04:27:14Z)
• Equality before the Law: Legal Judgment Consistency Analysis for Fairness [55.91612739713396]
  In this paper, we propose an evaluation metric for judgment inconsistency, Legal Inconsistency Coefficient (LInCo) We simulate judges from different groups with legal judgment prediction (LJP) models and measure the judicial inconsistency with the disagreement of the judgment results given by LJP models trained on different groups. We employ LInCo to explore the inconsistency in real cases and come to the following observations: (1) Both regional and gender inconsistency exist in the legal system, but gender inconsistency is much less than regional inconsistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-25T14:28:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.