Profiling vs. Case-specific Evidence: A Probabilistic Analysis

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to legal and criminal justice tasks, yet existing work focuses almost exclusively on post-arrest scenarios where the suspect's identity is already known, leaving the critical pre-arrest challenge of inferring suspect characteristics from incomplete evidence largely unexplored. To fill this gap, we introduce the Profiling, Investigation, and Judgment (PIJ), comprising 2,500 real homicide cases from five countries. PIJ evaluates LLMs across three tasks that span the entire criminal investigation pipeline: criminal profiling, which requires abductive reasoning to infer suspect attributes from fragmentary scene evidence, crime process reconstruction, which tests structured information extraction, and sentence prediction, which demands legal deductive reasoning. We evaluate 9 powerful LLMs and find that performance degrades systematically as tasks shift from explicit fact extraction to implicit reasoning over unknown suspect profiles. Categories requiring inferential reasoning, such as motivation and victim-offender relationships, remain the primary bottlenecks. Further analysis reveals substantial gaps between LLMs and human experts, along with pervasive biases in gender, age, and motive attribution. Our findings indicate that pre-arrest inference from incomplete evidence remains an open challenge.

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 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 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.

Evidence-grounded reasoning requires more than attaching retrieved text to a prediction: a model should make decisions that depend on whether the provided evidence supports the target claim. In practice, this often fails because supervision is weak, evidence is only loosely tied to the claim, and evaluation does not test evidence dependence directly. We introduce case-grounded evidence verification, a general framework in which a model receives a local case context, external evidence, and a structured claim, and must decide whether the evidence supports the claim for that case. Our key contribution is a supervision construction procedure that generates explicit support examples together with semantically controlled non-support examples, including counterfactual wrong-state and topic-related negatives, without manual evidence annotation. We instantiate the framework in radiology and train a standard verifier on the resulting support task. The learned verifier substantially outperforms both case-only and evidence-only baselines, remains strong under correct evidence, and collapses when evidence is removed or swapped, indicating genuine evidence dependence. This behavior transfers across unseen evidence articles and an external case distribution, though performance degrades under evidence-source shift and remains sensitive to backbone choice. Overall, the results suggest that a major bottleneck in evidence grounding is not only model capacity, but the lack of supervision that encodes the causal role of evidence.