The Cases LJP Never Sees: Prosecution Decision Prediction for More Complete Criminal Liability Assessment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28464v1
• Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 13:32:18 GMT
• Title: The Cases LJP Never Sees: Prosecution Decision Prediction for More Complete Criminal Liability Assessment
• Abstract summary: Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) has become a core benchmark for evaluating AI in the criminal legal domain.<n>We propose textbfProsecution Decision Prediction ( PDP), the first Legal AI task built around prosecutorial review.
• Score: 20.24311695645454
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) has become a core benchmark for evaluating AI in the criminal legal domain, but it only sees criminal cases that have already passed prosecutorial review and been formally indicted. As a result, LJP leaves a substantial blind spot in assessing criminal liability, overlooking cases involving insufficient evidence, no criminal liability, or guilt exempted from punishment. To fill this gap, we propose \textbf{Prosecution Decision Prediction (PDP)}, the first Legal AI task built around prosecutorial review, which classifies each case into prosecution or one of three non-prosecution decisions and reflects legal AI's capabilities in evidence evaluation, legal subsumption, and value-based discretion. We further construct \textbf{PDP-Bench}, a benchmark of 4{,}630 real Chinese prosecutorial decisions spanning 190 charges. Extensive experiments show that state-of-the-art LLMs perform substantially worse on PDP than on LJP and that mainstream enhancement routes fail to close the gap. Moreover, controlled RLVR interventions show that simple outcome rewards fail to produce generalizable PDP discrimination.

Related papers

• 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)
• 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)
• AnnoCaseLaw: A Richly-Annotated Dataset For Benchmarking Explainable Legal Judgment Prediction [56.797874973414636]
  AnnoCaseLaw is a first-of-its-kind dataset of 471 meticulously annotated U.S. Appeals Court negligence cases.<n>Our dataset lays the groundwork for more human-aligned, explainable Legal Judgment Prediction models.<n>Results demonstrate that LJP remains a formidable task, with application of legal precedent proving particularly difficult.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T19:14:48Z)
• Beyond Guilt: Legal Judgment Prediction with Trichotomous Reasoning [12.589047235741194]
  We introduce LJPIV, the first benchmark dataset for Legal Judgment Prediction with Innocent Verdicts.<n>Adhering to the trichotomous dogmatics, we extend three widely-used legal datasets through LLM-based augmentation and manual verification.<n>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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T07:14:13Z)
• 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)
• Fact-based Court Judgment Prediction [0.5439020425819]
  This extended abstract focuses on fact-based judgment prediction within the context of Indian legal documents. We introduce two distinct problem variations: one based solely on facts, and another combining facts with rulings from lower courts (RLC) Our research aims to enhance early-phase case outcome prediction, offering significant benefits to legal professionals and the general public.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-22T12:39:28Z)
• Adversarially Robust Neural Legal Judgement Systems [0.0]
  Legal judgment prediction is a task of predicting the outcome of court cases on a given text description of facts of cases. For such systems to be practically helpful, they should be robust from adversarial attacks. We propose an approach for making robust Legal Judgement Prediction systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-31T21:44:48Z)
• 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)
• Do Charge Prediction Models Learn Legal Theory? [59.74220430434435]
  We argue that trustworthy charge prediction models should take legal theories into consideration. We propose three principles for trustworthy models should follow in this task, which are sensitive, selective, and presumption of innocence. Our findings indicate that, while existing charge prediction models meet the selective principle on a benchmark dataset, most of them are still not sensitive enough and do not satisfy the presumption of innocence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T07:32:12Z)

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.