JPO: Juris Policy Optimization for Structured Legal Reasoning in Criminal Judgment Prediction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29616v1
• Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2026 07:14:02 GMT
• Title: JPO: Juris Policy Optimization for Structured Legal Reasoning in Criminal Judgment Prediction
• Abstract summary: Criminal judgment prediction requires models to infer statutory articles, charges, and sentencing outcomes from case facts.<n>We propose Juris Policy Optimization (JPO), a framework for structured legal reasoning in Chinese criminal judgment prediction.<n>JPO applies reinforcement learning with a composite reward over legal prediction quality, reasoning structure completeness, and cross-step consistency.
• Score: 20.503859525957584
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Criminal judgment prediction requires models to infer statutory articles, charges, and sentencing outcomes from case facts. Unlike standard classification tasks, it involves a structured reasoning process in which statutes should be matched with facts, charges should be justified by statutes, and sentencing outcomes should remain consistent with charges. Existing approaches optimize final labels, and while some have attempted to evaluate reasoning quality, their evaluations are indirect, often relying on LLM-generated rubrics that reflect model-internal preferences rather than the inherent logical structure of legal adjudication. We propose Juris Policy Optimization (JPO), a post-training framework for structured legal reasoning in Chinese criminal judgment prediction. JPO first uses teacher-generated rationales to supervise a standardized four-step reasoning process, and then applies reinforcement learning with a composite reward over legal prediction quality, reasoning structure completeness, and cross-step consistency. JPO further introduces token-level advantage reweighting and adaptive clipping for legally salient reasoning segments. Experiments on multiple open-source language models and three Chinese legal benchmarks show that JPO consistently improves both judgment prediction and reasoning quality over supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning baselines.

Related papers

• PROSLEX: A Novel Dataset for Expert-Annotated Legal Statute Prediction for Indian Judiciary [7.985120216055807]
  We present PROSLEX, a comprehensive dataset comprising 1,623 expert-annotated legal documents from the Indian context.<n>We evaluate various prompting strategies, including zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, and tree-of-thought, to generate both statute predictions and their corresponding legal rationales.<n>Our evaluation framework measures not only performance but also the coherence and legal validity of generated explanations, positioning PROSLEX as a benchmark for developing explainable AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-09T17:24:09Z)
• ReGal: A First Look at PPO-based Legal AI for Judgment Prediction and Summarization in India [10.522785783474857]
  We introduce Reinforcement Learning-based Legal Reasoning (ReGal), a framework that integrates Multi-Task Instruction Tuning with Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback.<n>Our approach is evaluated across two critical legal tasks: (i) Court Judgment Prediction and Explanation (CJPE), and (ii) Legal Document Summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-19T19:13:41Z)
• 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)
• J4R: Learning to Judge with Equivalent Initial State Group Relative Policy Optimization [69.23273504123941]
  We train judges to be robust to positional biases that arise in more complex evaluation settings.<n>We introduce ReasoningJudgeBench, a benchmark that evaluates judges in diverse reasoning settings not covered by prior work.<n>We train Judge for Reasoning (J4R), a 7B judge trained with EIS-GRPO that outperforms GPT-4o and the next best small judge by 6.7% and 9%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T16:50:35Z)
• Learning to Plan & Reason for Evaluation with Thinking-LLM-as-a-Judge [78.28188747489769]
  We propose EvalPlanner, a preference optimization algorithm for Thinking-LLM-as-a-Judge.<n>In a self-training loop, EvalPlanner iteratively optimize over synthetically constructed evaluation plans and executions.<n>Our method achieves a new state-of-the-art performance for generative reward models on RewardBench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-30T02:21:59Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.