VERDICT: Verifiable Evolving Reasoning with Directive-Informed Collegial Teams for Legal Judgment Prediction

Mainstream methods for Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) based on Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) heavily rely on the statistical correlation between case facts and judgment results. This paradigm lacks explicit modeling of legal constituent elements and underlying causal logic, making models prone to learning spurious correlations and suffering from poor robustness. While introducing causal inference can mitigate this issue, existing causal LJP methods face two critical bottlenecks in real-world legal texts: inaccurate legal factor extraction with severe noise, and significant uncertainty in causal structure discovery due to Markov equivalence under sparse features. To address these challenges, we propose an enhanced causal inference framework that integrates Large Language Model (LLM) priors with statistical causal discovery. First, we design a coarse-to-fine hybrid extraction mechanism combining statistical sampling and LLM semantic reasoning to accurately identify and purify standard legal constituent elements. Second, to resolve structural uncertainty, we introduce an LLM-assisted causal structure disambiguation mechanism. By utilizing the LLM as a constrained prior knowledge base, we conduct probabilistic evaluation and pruning on ambiguous causal directions to generate legally compliant candidate causal graphs. Finally, a causal-aware judgment prediction model is constructed by explicitly constraining text attention intensity via the generated causal graphs. Extensive experiments on multiple benchmark datasets, including LEVEN , QA, and CAIL, demonstrate that our proposed method significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in both predictive accuracy and robustness, particularly in distinguishing confusing charges.

Court Judgment Prediction and Explanation (CJPE) aims to predict a judicial decision and provide a legally grounded explanation for a given case based on the facts, legal issues, arguments, cited statutes, and relevant precedents. For such systems to be practically useful in judicial or legal research settings, they must not only achieve high predictive performance but also generate transparent and structured legal reasoning that aligns with established judicial practices. In this work, we present NyayaMind, an open-source framework designed to enable transparent and scalable legal reasoning for the Indian judiciary. The proposed framework integrates retrieval, reasoning, and verification mechanisms to emulate the structured decision-making process typically followed in courts. Specifically, NyayaMind consists of two main components: a Retrieval Module and a Prediction Module. The Retrieval Module employs a RAG pipeline to identify legally relevant statutes and precedent cases from large-scale legal corpora, while the Prediction Module utilizes reasoning-oriented LLMs fine-tuned for the Indian legal domain to generate structured outputs including issues, arguments, rationale, and the final decision. Our extensive results and expert evaluation demonstrate that NyayaMind significantly improves the quality of explanation and evidence alignment compared to existing CJPE approaches, providing a promising step toward trustworthy AI-assisted legal decision support systems.

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.