← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.1410 · 记录 #1
To Judge or Not to Judge: Can Large Language Models Leverage the Dispute Focus in Legal Judgment?
来源日期（仅到月份） 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 21:53
摘要
Civil judicial cases are highly complicated, posing significant challenges for Large Language Models (LLMs) for Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP). While judges manage this complexity through the dispute focus—a mechanism distilling cases into core issues—existing research largely overlooks this tool in favor of generic reasoning frameworks that lack authentic judicial logic. To bridge this gap, we first introduce \textbf{FocalLaw}, the first dataset aligning full-process Chinese civil judicial data through the dispute focus, comprising 1,000 high-quality cases across six causes of action. Building on this dataset, we examine LLMs’ capability to utilize the dispute focus and uncover a counter-intuitive phenomenon: LLMs fail to leverage the dispute focus even with CoT and SFT, which we identify as the “Clerk Trap”.To solve the problem, we propose \textbf{FocalJudge}, a novel framework that leverages the dispute focus to guide LLMs through a structured, judge-like cognitive workflow. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of FocalJudge and offer valuable insights into the interpretability and reliability of LLMs in the legal domain.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索，不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化，不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时，按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
To Judge or Not to Judge: Can Large Language Models Leverage the Dispute Focus in Legal Judgment?
Civil judicial cases are highly complicated, posing significant challenges for Large Language Models (LLMs) for Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP). While judges manage this complexity through the dispute focus—a mechanism distilling cases into core issues—existing research largely overlooks this tool in favor of generic reasoning frameworks that lack authentic judicial logic. To bridge this gap, we first introduce \textbf{FocalLaw}, the first dataset aligning full-process Chinese civil judicial data through the dispute focus, comprising 1,000 high-quality cases across six causes of action. Building on this dataset, we examine LLMs’ capability to utilize the dispute focus and uncover a counter-intuitive phenomenon: LLMs fail to leverage the dispute focus even with CoT and SFT, which we identify as the “Clerk Trap”.To solve the problem, we propose \textbf{FocalJudge}, a novel framework that leverages the dispute focus to guide LLMs through a structured, judge-like cognitive workflow. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of FocalJudge and offer valuable insights into the interpretability and reliability of LLMs in the legal domain.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗