Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41544123›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

A legal judgment prediction model based on knowledge fusion and dependency masking.

Yishan Chen, Xiaoyi Zhu, Zhiyun Zeng, Pengfei Wang, Xinhua Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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

5 authors.

Yishan ChenSchool of Business, Guilin Tourism University, Guilin, China.
Xiaoyi ZhuSchool of Computer Science and Technology, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, China.
Zhiyun ZengSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4689-5191
Pengfei WangSchool of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Xinhua ZhuSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is a core task in Legal AI systems, which aims to predict law articles, charges, and term-of-penalty from case facts. While existing deep-learning-based LJP approaches for civil law systems have achieved certain progress, they still suffer from two key limitations: (1) insufficient deep understanding and effective utilization of external judicial knowledge; and (2) the lack of effective strategies to filter out erroneous dependency information in multi-task LJP frameworks. To address these challenges, we propose a legal judgment prediction model based on knowledge fusion and dependency masking. Specifically, we first integrate a CNN-based local semantic refinement component into the existing BERT-based legal knowledge extraction method, thereby enabling the model to further extract the core knowledge embedded in judicial documents. Then, we introduce differential attention to reduce noise in conventional attention fusion methods and help the model locate key information in case facts more accurately. Furthermore, we propose a multi-task dependency information masking mechanism to accurately identify and filter erroneous dependency information for multi-task LJP methods. Experiments conducted on real-world datasets demonstrate the superiority of our proposed model. This code is available online at https://github.com/PaperCode-GNU/KFTM.

Indexed as

JudgmentConvolutional Neural NetworksDeep LearningHumansPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning Models

Identifiers

PMID41544123
PMCPMC12810926

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.