Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41199807›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

Legal Logit Model for predicting judicial disagreement in Indian courts.

Sivaranjani N, Jayabharathy J

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sivaranjani NSchool of Computer Science and Engineering (SCOPE), Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT) Chennai Campus, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Jayabharathy JDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Puducherry Technological University, Puducherry, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Once a case reaches the Supreme Court on appeal, the justices may either affirm or reverse the judgment of the lower court. Forecasting such judicial disagreement is important not only for predicting outcomes but also for understanding the judge-specific and case-specific factors that drive these decisions. This study aimed to present the Legal Logit Model (LLM), an evolved neural network-based version of the Multinomial Logit (MNL) model. The LLM combines the interpretability of discrete choice theory with the flexibility of neural networks. Therefore, it is capable of modeling complex, non-linear interactions while preserving transparency about the influence of individual features. Utilizing features extracted from both cases and judges, the model predicts whether the Supreme Court will reverse a lower court's ruling and highlights the factors most strongly associated with disagreement. When tested on a dataset of Supreme Court opinions, the LLM achieves 80% accuracy in predicting outcomes, outperforming conventional logit and deep learning-based models. Despite the possibility of motivated reasoning in Supreme Court opinions, limiting causal interpretation, the findings show that the LLM presents an interpretable and effective predictive framework applicable to the study of judicial decision-making.

Indexed as

affirmative and reverse decisionschoice modelingconditional logitdifference of opinionslogit modelSDG 17

Identifiers

PMID41199807
PMCPMC12586031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.