TypedCSIP: Typed Counterfactual Pretraining for Chinese Legislative Conflict Classification

As LLMs enter conflict monitoring, understanding systematic distortions in their outputs is critical for humanitarian accountability. We evaluate four vanilla open-weight models Gemma 3 4B, Llama 3.2 3B, Mistral 7B, and OLMo 2 7B and two domain-adapted models, AfroConfliBERT and AfroConfliLLAMA, on Nigeria and Cameroon conflict-event classification against ACLED, a gold-standard dataset with multi-stage verification. We find a bifurcated divergence in normative directionality. Open-weight models exhibit statistically significant False Illegitimation bias: Gemma misclassifies to 18.29% of legitimate battles as civilian-targeted violence while making zero False Legitimation errors. By contrast, AfroConfliBERT and AfroConfliLLAMA achieve near-directional neutrality, with Legitimization Bias differences indistinguishable from zero. Yet domain adaptation does not eliminate actor-based selection bias. Both adapted models show statistically significant actor bias comparable to vanilla LLMs; in Nigeria, state actors are legitimized 36.5% more often than non-state actors in identical tactical contexts. Open-weight outputs are also fragile to geography-specific lexical framing: delegitimizing phrases produce flip rates up to 66.7% in Cameroon and 34.2% in Nigeria, while perturbations salient in one context may not matter in another. Error trace profiling shows models mask normative bias through unfaithful rationale confabulations. In contrast, AfroConfliBERT and AfroConfliLLAMA are largely robust, with near-zero flip rates across perturbation categories. Overall, current models are not ready for unsupervised deployment in conflict monitoring. We call for fairness-aware fine-tuning to reduce actor-based selection bias, mandatory adversarial robustness evaluation against lexical manipulation, and context-specific human-in-the-loop oversight calibrated to regional difficulty.

More than half of the global population struggles to meet their civil justice needs due to limited legal resources. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities, significant challenges remain even at the foundational step of legal issue identification. To investigate LLMs' capabilities in this task, we constructed a dataset from 769 real-world Malaysian Contract Act court cases, using GPT-4o to extract facts and generate candidate legal issues, annotated by senior legal experts, which reveals a critical limitation: while LLMs generate diverse issue candidates, their precision remains inadequate (GPT-4o achieves only 62%). To address this gap, we propose LePREC (Legal Professional-inspired Reasoning Elicitation and Classification), a neuro-symbolic framework combining neural generation with structured statistical reasoning. LePREC consists of: (1) a neuro component leverages LLMs to transform legal descriptions into question-answer pairs representing diverse analytical factors, and (2) a symbolic component applies sparse linear models over these discrete features, learning explicit algebraic weights that identify the most informative reasoning factors. Unlike end-to-end neural approaches, LePREC achieves interpretability through transparent feature weighting while maintaining data efficiency through correlation-based statistical classification. Experiments show a 30-40% improvement over advanced LLM baselines, including GPT-4o and Claude, confirming that correlation-based factor-issue analysis offers a more data-efficient solution for relevance decisions.

Existing metrics for factuality and faithfulness evaluate whether an answer is supported or contradicted by its grounding documents, but they fail to capture when both supporting and contradicting evidence coexist. We introduce ConflictScore, a novel metric that quantifies how well a model's response acknowledges conflicting evidence in its grounding documents. Our framework decomposes responses into atomic claims, labels each claim against each grounding document, and then aggregates these labels into two complementary measures: ConflictScore-Count (CS-C), the proportion of claims exhibiting conflicts, and ConflictScore-Ratio (CS-R), the balance between supporting and contradicting evidence. We develop ConflictBench, a benchmark covering diverse forms of conflicts such as ambiguity, contradiction, and divergent opinions, to systematically evaluate our metric. Experiments show that ConflictScore effectively detects overconfident claims across domains and can serve as a corrective feedback mechanism that improves truthfulness on TruthfulQA.