Semantics of Subterfuge: Benchmarking Legal Deception Detection Against General-domain State-of-the-Art

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.29066v1
• Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 06:36:25 GMT
• Title: Semantics of Subterfuge: Benchmarking Legal Deception Detection Against General-domain State-of-the-Art
• Abstract summary: We present a survey and comparative analysis of NLP-based Automatic Deception Detection (ADD) focusing on the legal domain.<n>We compare fine-tuned transformer models and Large Language Model (LLM) approaches.<n>The results show strong domain sensitivity, with fine-tuned models excelling in data-rich general domains and few-shot LLMs remaining competitive in low-resource legal settings.
• Score: 1.117876753894891
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Deception detection has critical implications for legal proceedings, law enforcement, and online security. Although human judgment is limited in accuracy and scalability, Natural Language Processing (NLP) offers a data-driven alternative. We present a survey and comparative analysis of NLP-based Automatic Deception Detection (ADD) focusing on the legal domain, reviewing the evolution from feature-based machine learning to Large Language Model (LLM) approaches. We conduct a unified empirical evaluation across seven datasets (two legal, five general-domain), comparing six fine-tuned transformer models and seven LLMs under four prompting strategies. The results show strong domain sensitivity, with fine-tuned models excelling in data-rich general domains and few-shot LLMs remaining competitive in low-resource legal settings. Chain-of-Thought prompting often underperforms direct classification. These findings highlight the need for domain adaptation and interpretable systems in high-stakes legal contexts.

Related papers

• Cross-Domain Data Selection and Augmentation for Automatic Compliance Detection [1.8314346918344617]
  We study data selection as a strategy to mitigate negative transfer in compliance detection framed as a natural language inference (NLI) task.<n>Specifically, we evaluate four approaches for selecting augmentation from a larger source domain.<n>Our findings demonstrate that targeted data selection substantially reduces negative transfer, offering a practical path toward scalable and reliable compliance automation across heterogeneous regulations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T09:28:50Z)
• RPA-Check: A Multi-Stage Automated Framework for Evaluating Dynamic LLM-based Role-Playing Agents [4.07447364754644]
  This paper introduces RPA-Check, a multi-stage automated evaluation framework designed to objectively assess the performance of LLM-based RPAs.<n>We validate this framework by applying it to LLM Court, a serious game for forensic training involving several quantized local models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T16:08:03Z)
• DepthCharge: A Domain-Agnostic Framework for Measuring Depth-Dependent Knowledge in Large Language Models [51.56484100374058]
  Large Language Models appear competent when answering general questions but often fail when pushed into domain-specific details.<n>We present DepthCharge, a domain-agnostic framework that measures knowledge depth through three innovations.<n> adaptive probing that generates follow-up questions based on concepts the model actually mentions, on-demand fact verification from authoritative sources, and survival statistics with constant sample sizes at every depth level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T20:49:11Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating the Role of Verifiers in Test-Time Scaling for Legal Reasoning Tasks [2.1049704239329152]
  Test-time scaling (TTS) techniques can improve the performance of large language models (LLMs) at the expense of additional computation and latency.<n>We present an empirical study of verifier-based TTS methods for legal multiple-choice QA (MCQA) across five benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T15:27:47Z)
• AUTOLAW: Enhancing Legal Compliance in Large Language Models via Case Law Generation and Jury-Inspired Deliberation [5.732271982985626]
  AutoLaw is a novel violation detection framework for domain-specific large language models (LLMs)<n>It combines adversarial data generation with a jury-inspired deliberation process to enhance legal compliance of LLMs.<n>Our results highlight the framework's ability to adaptively probe legal misalignments and deliver reliable, context-aware judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T07:09:13Z)
• SEOE: A Scalable and Reliable Semantic Evaluation Framework for Open Domain Event Detection [70.23196257213829]
  We propose a scalable and reliable Semantic-level Evaluation framework for Open domain Event detection.<n>Our proposed framework first constructs a scalable evaluation benchmark that currently includes 564 event types covering 7 major domains.<n>We then leverage large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluation agents to compute a semantic F1-score, incorporating fine-grained definitions of semantically similar labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T09:37:05Z)
• Evaluating LLM-based Approaches to Legal Citation Prediction: Domain-specific Pre-training, Fine-tuning, or RAG? A Benchmark and an Australian Law Case Study [9.30538764385435]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential across legal tasks, yet the problem of legal citation prediction remains under-explored.<n>We introduce the AusLaw Citation Benchmark, a real-world dataset comprising 55k Australian legal instances and 18,677 unique citations.<n>We then conduct a systematic benchmarking across a range of solutions.<n>Results show that neither general nor law-specific LLMs suffice as stand-alone solutions, with performance near zero.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T07:46:14Z)
• Precedent-Enhanced Legal Judgment Prediction with LLM and Domain-Model Collaboration [52.57055162778548]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) has become an increasingly crucial task in Legal AI. Precedents are the previous legal cases with similar facts, which are the basis for the judgment of the subsequent case in national legal systems. Recent advances in deep learning have enabled a variety of techniques to be used to solve the LJP task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T16:47:20Z)
• Towards Fair Knowledge Transfer for Imbalanced Domain Adaptation [61.317911756566126]
  We propose a Towards Fair Knowledge Transfer framework to handle the fairness challenge in imbalanced cross-domain learning. Specifically, a novel cross-domain mixup generation is exploited to augment the minority source set with target information to enhance fairness. Our model significantly improves over 20% on two benchmarks in terms of the overall accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-23T06:29:09Z)
• Cross-domain Detection via Graph-induced Prototype Alignment [114.8952035552862]
  We propose a Graph-induced Prototype Alignment (GPA) framework to seek for category-level domain alignment. In addition, in order to alleviate the negative effect of class-imbalance on domain adaptation, we design a Class-reweighted Contrastive Loss. Our approach outperforms existing methods with a remarkable margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-28T17:46:55Z)

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.