Organizations: School of Computer Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University · School of Computer Science, South China Normal University · 3China Mobile Internet Co., Ltd.
Abstract
Criminal Court View Generation (CVG) is a critical task in Legal Artificial Intelligence (Legal AI), involving the generation of court view based on case facts. In this work, we systematically explore the capabilities of lightweight (smaller than 2B) large language models (LLMs) in CVG and their impact on charge prediction. Our study addresses four key questions: (1) how does different architecture of LLMs affect the CVG quality and charge prediction. (2) how does LLMs size contribute to the performance, (3) how do lightweight LLMs compare with Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) in these tasks, and (4) how does predicting charge by court view generation first compare with predicting it directly. Additionally, we also develop CVGEvalKit, an evaluation framework including three public available datasets for CVG tasks, as well as predicting their charges. Comprehensive experiments are conducted on this framework, where models are trained on a mixed training set and evaluated on each dataset's test set. Experimental results provide new insights into the trade-offs between model architecture, model size, and the influence between different tasks, highlighting the potential of lightweight LLMs in judicial AI applications. The source code is anonymously available at \url{https://github.com/ZhitianHou/CVGEvalKit}
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.
Existing benchmarks for legal AI focus primarily on tasks where LLMs must produce legal arguments or documents, yet the capacity to \emph{judge} such arguments -- weighing competing claims, applying doctrine to facts, and rendering reasoned decisions -- is arguably as fundamental to a well-functioning legal system as advocacy itself. We introduce Magis-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs on magistrate-level writing tasks derived from recent Brazilian competitive examinations for judicial positions. Magis-Bench comprises 74 questions from eight examinations conducted between 2023 and 2025, including discursive legal analysis questions with multi-turn structure and practical exercises requiring the composition of complete civil and criminal judicial sentences. We evaluate 23 state-of-the-art LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge methodology with four independent frontier models as evaluators. Our results show strong inter-judge agreement (Kendall's W=0.984; pairwise Kendall's τ≥0.897), with Google's Gemini-3-Pro-Preview achieving the highest average score (6.97/10), followed by Gemini-3-Flash-Preview (6.67) and Claude-4.5-Opus (6.46). Even the best-performing models score below 70% of the maximum, indicating that judicial-level legal reasoning and writing remain challenging for current LLMs. We release the complete benchmark, model outputs, and evaluation code to support further research on legal AI capabilities.
Ramon Pires, Thales Sales Almeida, Celio Larcher Junior +6
Chatbots are robots that can communicate with humans using text or voice signals. Legal chatbots improve access to justice, since legal representation and legal advice by lawyers come with a high cost that excludes disadvantaged and vulnerable people. However, capturing the diversity of actual user input in datasets for deep-learning dialog systems (chatbots) is a technical challenge. Diversity requires large volumes of data, which must also be labelled in order to classify the user's intent, while the cost of labelling datasets increases with volume. Instead of labelling large volumes of authentic data from users, our approach consists in jointly generating large volumes of utterances and high-quality labels. The generator of labelled datasets is based on language resources that take the form of local grammar graphs (LGG), which capture and generalize the vocabulary and local syntax observed by linguists in text. The LGGs associate labels to the utterances according to a domain-specific classification system. We tested this approach by implementing LIGA, a legal chatbot in Korean. The chatbot answers users' conversational queries on legal situations by providing information on similar legal cases, made publicly available by the Korean government. We generated labelled utterances from the LGGs with the aid of the open-source Unitex platform. This process produced 700 million utterances. We trained a DIET classifier on a dataset made of these utterances, and the trained model reached 91% f1-score performance. We implemented a chatbot called LIGA, which uses the results of the model to select a link to a web page that documents similar legal cases.