analiza aiqbench
This research investigates how Large Language Models simulate jury decision-making, revealing that background affinity and ideological alignment between jurors and defendants significantly influence verdict severity. The study introduces JuryBench, a new benchmark for evaluating LLMs in legal contexts, and finds that emotional appeals from defendants can sometimes backfire by appearing as evidence of guilt. These findings underscore the critical risks of bias when deploying AI to model human judicial reasoning and the need for rigorous evaluation before such tools are adopted in professional settings.
When Does Defendant Statement Matter? A Study of Bias and Persuasion in LLM-Simulated Jurors
arXiv:2609.09887v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs have been used to simulate human decision-making in professional settings, yet their behaviors in common-law jury trials remain unexplored. We study when and how a defendant's courtroom statement affects LLM-simulated jurors, focusing on persuasion, ideological bias, and background-based affinity. To support the analysis, we introduce JuryBench, a benchmark containing controversial criminal cases in U.S. criminal law. In each case, a defendant can claim various plausible justifications to support acquittal or reduced liability. We fix the base case and design defendants of different backgrounds, who give courtroom statements with varying emotional appeal or rebuttal. Jurors with diverse ideological profiles across the spectrum are simulated. We examine 20 frontier LLMs, resulting in a total of 432K decisions and rationales, and quantify changes in verdict severity. Our findings show that LLM-jury simulation echoes many human-jury findings. First, emotional persuasion can be detrimental, since jurors may perceive it as evidence of guilt or inconsistency. Next, we show that background fit between jurors and defendants is a stronger and significant factor than other isolated factors, and that jurors are in general harsher toward opposite-background defendants and lenient toward same-background ones. Finally, we find that juror ideology also strongly shapes severity judgments. These findings highlight both the promise and risks of using LLMs to model jury reasoning and call for careful evaluation. The data and code are available at https://github.com/choyingw/JuryBench
Title:When Does Defendant Statement Matter? A Study of Bias and Persuasion in LLM-Simulated Jurors
Abstract:LLMs have been used to simulate human decision-making in professional settings, yet their behaviors in common-law jury trials remain unexplored. We study when and how a defendant's courtroom statement affects LLM-simulated jurors, focusing on persuasion, ideological bias, and background-based affinity. To support the analysis, we introduce JuryBench, a benchmark containing controversial criminal cases in U.S. criminal law. In each case, a defendant can claim various plausible justifications to support acquittal or reduced liability. We fix the base case and design defendants of different backgrounds, who give courtroom statements with varying emotional appeal or rebuttal. Jurors with diverse ideological profiles across the spectrum are simulated. We examine 20 frontier LLMs, resulting in a total of 432K decisions and rationales, and quantify changes in verdict severity. Our findings show that LLM-jury simulation echoes many human-jury findings. First, emotional persuasion can be detrimental, since jurors may perceive it as evidence of guilt or inconsistency. Next, we show that background fit between jurors and defendants is a stronger and significant factor than other isolated factors, and that jurors are in general harsher toward opposite-background defendants and lenient toward same-background ones. Finally, we find that juror ideology also strongly shapes severity judgments. These findings highlight both the promise and risks of using LLMs to model jury reasoning and call for careful evaluation. The data and code are available at this https URL
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computers and Society (cs.CY)
arXiv:2609.09887 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.09887v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.09887 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 340 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · 27 sept. 2026
The current bottleneck is political will, not research
AI Alignment Forum · 11 iul. 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026

Cracking the Data Science Case Study Interview
Analytics Vidhya · 26 iul. 2026