AppellateGen: A Benchmark for Appellate Legal Judgment Generation

Hongkun Yang, Lionel Z. Wang, Wei Fan, Yiran Hu, Lixu Wang, Chenyu Liu, Yu Zeng, Shenghong Fu, Lei Gong, Zhengxin Zhang, Haoyang Li, Jiexin Zheng, Xin Xu · Jan 4, 2026 · Citations: 0

Multi Agent

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Legal judgment generation is a critical task in legal intelligence. However, existing research in legal judgment generation has predominantly focused on first-instance trials, relying on static fact-to-verdict mappings while neglecting the dialectical nature of appellate (second-instance) review. To address this, we introduce AppellateGen, a benchmark for second-instance legal judgment generation comprising 7,351 case pairs. The task requires models to draft legally binding judgments by reasoning over the initial verdict and evidentiary updates, thereby modeling the causal dependency between trial stages. We further propose a judicial Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)-based Legal Multi-Agent System (SLMAS) to simulate judicial workflows, which decomposes the generation process into discrete stages of issue identification, retrieval, and drafting. Experimental results indicate that while SLMAS improves logical consistency, the complexity of appellate reasoning remains a substantial challenge for current LLMs. The dataset and code are publicly available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/AppellateGen-5763.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.