ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Legal Logit Model for predicting judicial disagreement in Indian courts.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.