Profiling vs. Case-specific Evidence: A Probabilistic Analysis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00098v1
• Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2026 13:43:02 GMT
• Title: Profiling vs. Case-specific Evidence: A Probabilistic Analysis
• Abstract summary: We argue that profiling evidence may support a generic hypothesis, but is not evidence that the defendant is guilty of the specific crime which they are accused of.<n>Our critique departs from others by grounding the argument in a probabilistic analysis of evidentiary value.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The use of profiling evidence in criminal trials is a longstanding controversy in legal epistemology and evidence law theory. Many scholars, even when they oppose its use at trial, still assume that profiling evidence can be probative of guilt. We reject that assumption. Profiling evidence may support a generic hypothesis, but is not evidence that the defendant is guilty of the specific crime of which they are accused. We contrast profiling evidence with case-specific evidence, which speaks more directly to the facts of the case. Our critique departs from others by grounding the argument in a probabilistic analysis of evidentiary value. We also explore the implications of our account for debates about stereotyping.

Related papers

• When Does Defendant Statement Matter? A Study of Bias and Persuasion in LLM-Simulated Jurors [2.8935588665357077]
  We study when and how a defendant's courtroom statement affects LLM-simulated jurors.<n>JuryBench is a benchmark containing controversial criminal cases in U.S. criminal law.<n>We find that emotional persuasion can be detrimental, since jurors may perceive it as evidence of guilt or inconsistency.<n>Background fit between jurors and defendants is a stronger and significant factor than other isolated factors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-09T08:43:34Z)
• OBJECTION! Lawyer Agents Mitigate Guilty Bias in Legal Judgment Prediction [17.160212964113214]
  We introduce OBJECTION, an inference-time pipeline that integrates an Adversarial Lawyer Agent into each 3-step reasoning of offense, unlawfulness, and culpability.<n>Unlike generic critics, our agent actively challenges the model's presumptions of guilt by injecting legal defense arguments at each reasoning stage.<n>Test results show that OBJECTION drastically reduces the False Guilty Rate (FGR) from 82.93% (SOTA baseline) to 16.69%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-02T06:18:44Z)
• Case-Grounded Evidence Verification: A Framework for Constructing Evidence-Sensitive Supervision [1.7044563989708406]
  We introduce case-grounded evidence verification.<n>We train a standard verifier on the resulting support task.<n>Results suggest that a major bottleneck in evidence grounding is not only model capacity, but the lack of supervision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-10T17:55:38Z)
• Legal Fact Prediction: The Missing Piece in Legal Judgment Prediction [19.863860129103283]
  Legal judgment prediction (LJP) enables litigants and their lawyers to forecast judgment outcomes and refine litigation strategies.<n>Existing studies typically utilize legal facts, i.e., facts established by evidence and determined by the judge, to predict the judgment.<n>We propose a novel legal NLP task: legal fact prediction (LFP), which takes the evidence submitted by litigants for trial as input to predict legal facts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T07:01:08Z)
• What Makes Medical Claims (Un)Verifiable? Analyzing Entity and Relation Properties for Fact Verification [8.086400003948143]
  The BEAR-Fact corpus is the first corpus for scientific fact verification annotated with subject-relation-object triplets, evidence documents, and fact-checking verdicts. We show that it is possible to reliably estimate the success of evidence retrieval purely from the claim text. The dataset is available at http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/data/bioclaim.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T12:27:58Z)
• Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials [0.0]
  We investigate how the use of bullet comparison algorithms and demonstrative evidence may affect juror perceptions of reliability, credibility, and understanding of expert witnesses and presented evidence. We find that individuals overwhelmingly provided high Likert scale ratings in reliability, credibility, and scientificity regardless of experimental condition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-18T04:21:01Z)
• Belief formation and the persistence of biased beliefs [0.0]
  We propose a belief-formation model where agents attempt to discriminate between two theories. In our model, limitations on information processing provide incentives to censor weak evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-12T16:27:04Z)
• Complex Claim Verification with Evidence Retrieved in the Wild [73.19998942259073]
  We present the first fully automated pipeline to check real-world claims by retrieving raw evidence from the web. Our pipeline includes five components: claim decomposition, raw document retrieval, fine-grained evidence retrieval, claim-focused summarization, and veracity judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T17:49:19Z)
• Read it Twice: Towards Faithfully Interpretable Fact Verification by Revisiting Evidence [59.81749318292707]
  We propose a fact verification model named ReRead to retrieve evidence and verify claim. The proposed system is able to achieve significant improvements upon best-reported models under different settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-02T03:23:14Z)
• Uncertain Evidence in Probabilistic Models and Stochastic Simulators [80.40110074847527]
  We consider the problem of performing Bayesian inference in probabilistic models where observations are accompanied by uncertainty, referred to as uncertain evidence' We explore how to interpret uncertain evidence, and by extension the importance of proper interpretation as it pertains to inference about latent variables. We devise concrete guidelines on how to account for uncertain evidence and we provide new insights, particularly regarding consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-21T20:32:59Z)
• Fact-Saboteurs: A Taxonomy of Evidence Manipulation Attacks against Fact-Verification Systems [80.3811072650087]
  We show that it is possible to subtly modify claim-salient snippets in the evidence and generate diverse and claim-aligned evidence. The attacks are also robust against post-hoc modifications of the claim. These attacks can have harmful implications on the inspectable and human-in-the-loop usage scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-07T13:39:24Z)
• What About the Precedent: An Information-Theoretic Analysis of Common Law [64.49276556192073]
  In common law, the outcome of a new case is determined mostly by precedent cases, rather than existing statutes. We are the first to approach this question by comparing two longstanding jurisprudential views. We find that the precedent's arguments share 0.38 nats of information with the case's outcome, whereas precedent's facts only share 0.18 nats of information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-25T11:20:09Z)
• Time-Aware Evidence Ranking for Fact-Checking [56.247512670779045]
  We investigate the hypothesis that the timestamp of a Web page is crucial to how it should be ranked for a given claim. Our study reveals that time-aware evidence ranking not only surpasses relevance assumptions based purely on semantic similarity or position in a search results list, but also improves veracity predictions of time-sensitive claims in particular.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-10T13:39:49Z)

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.