Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41484298›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Explainable judgment prediction and article-violation analysis using deep LexFaith hierarchical BERT model.

Xiaoyue Zhang, Shuang Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.

Xiaoyue ZhangSchool of Law, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China. zhangxy619080157@163.com.
Shuang LiuSchool of Law, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China.

Funding

Ministry of Justice of the People's Republic of China Ministry of Justice Rule of Law Construction and Legal Theory Research Departmental Scientific Research Project "Research on the Governance of New Types of Job-related Crimes in the Financial Sector" 22SFB3015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of Artificial Intelligence has already changed every sphere of our lives and legal field is not an exception as cases are being prepared by analyzing content of legal documents. Traditional machine learning and deep learning models lack to comprehend the complex language and infer legal reasoning required in such tasks. In this research work, our aims to predict which legal violation has occurred and also to specific articles or legal rights have been violated. To achieve the objectives, we propose architecture named Legal Faithfulness-Aware Hierarchical BERT (LexFaith-HierBERT), which integrates a hierarchical BERT-based encoder with a relational rationale head and a faithfulness-aware attention mechanism. The proposed model captures both inter- and intra-token dependencies, offering deeper contextual understanding and thus improved transparency in predictions. The proposed approach significantly outperforms several baseline methods from the existing studies including machine learning and deep learning including transformers. Empirical results demonstrate that proposed model achieves the highest accuracy of 88% for binary classification and a leading micro-F1 score of 71% for multi-label classification. Statistical significance tests prove legal reliability of the proposed system in real-world applications and model interpretation is carried out using LIME, SHAP values and attention heatmaps, to enhance the transparency and explainability of proposed model for decision making.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceBinary classificationDeep learningDocument analysisHierarchical BERTInterpretabilityLaw and AILegal judgment predictionMulti-label classificationNatural language processingSaliency maps

Identifiers

PMID41484298
PMCPMC12830763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.