CyberJurors: A Multi-Agent Simulation Task for E-Commerce Disputes Verdict
Yanhui Sun, Wu Liu, Haifeng Ming, Xinru Wang, Hantao Yao, Yongdong Zhang
Abstract
E-commerce platforms have begun recruiting crowdsourced jurors to adjudicate massive volumes of transaction disputes. Unlike formal legal judgment, E-commerce dispute verdicts require grounding pivotal clues from redundant, multi-round, multimodal evidence and making decisions under flexible platform-specific conventions. These characteristics render existing methods insufficient for this scenario. To bridge this gap, we introduce a pioneering task, E-commerce Dispute Verdicts (EDV), and present VerdictBench , a multimodal benchmark comprising 6,000 real-world cases designed to reflect crowdsourced jury decisions. Building upon this, we propose CyberJurors , a multi-agent framework to clarify the dispute logic and regulate the verdict process. At the individual level, Individual Verdict Chain-of-Thought decomposes the EDV task into four structured reasoning stages, enabling fine-grained clue perception and clarifying causal logic between pivotal clues and the dispute focus. At the collective level, Jury Consensus Verdict simulates multi-round discussion and voting among jurors, while incorporating verdict precedents to mitigate cognitive biases toward either disputant. Experiments on VerdictBench show that CyberJurors outperforms state-of-the-art LLMs, MLLMs, and court simulators, while achieving stronger alignment with real-world jury voting patterns. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/YanhuiS/CyberJurors and https://huggingface.co/datasets/piggi/VerdictBench.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 29e49601-9f7f-4bf5-a3e4-6e5ba534cdf3Builds on12
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent DebateYilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B. Tenenbaum et al.ICML 2024 · 1,562 citations
- ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent DebateChi-Min Chan, Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Jianxuan Yu et al.ICLR 2024 · 871 citations
- Video-of-Thought: Step-by-Step Video Reasoning from Perception to CognitionHao Fei, Shengqiong Wu, Wei Ji, Hanwang Zhang et al.ICML 2024 · 182 citations
- LawBench: Benchmarking Legal Knowledge of Large Language ModelsZhiwei Fei, Xiaoyu Shen, Dawei Zhu, Fengzhe Zhou et al.EMNLP 2024 · 59 citations
Related papers
- Mix-Ecom: Towards Mixed-Type E-Commerce Dialogues with Complex Domain RulesChenyu Zhou, Xiaoming Shi, Hui Qiu, Yankai Jiang et al.ICLR 2026 · 4 citations
- E-VAds: An E-commerce Short Videos Understanding Benchmark for MLLMsXianjie Liu, Yiman Hu, Liang Wu, Ping Hu et al.ICML 2026 · 1 citation
- ProJudge: A Multi-Modal Multi-Discipline Benchmark and Instruction-Tuning Dataset for Mllm-Based Process JudgesJiaxin Ai, Pengfei Zhou, Zhaopan Xu, Ming Li et al.ICCV 2025 · 9 citations
- Multi-Agent-as-Judge: Aligning LLM-Agent-Based Automated Evaluation with Multi-Dimensional Human EvaluationJiaju Chen, Yuxuan Lu, Xiaojie Wang, Huimin Zeng et al.ACL 2026 · 30 citations
- Beyond Single View: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models on Multi-Image UnderstandingDexuan Xu, Jiayin Yuan, Jianing Wang, Yanyuan Chen et al.ACL 2026
