🤖 AI Summary
Criminal judgment documents lack structured annotations of judicial reasoning elements, hindering large-scale empirical legal research.
Method: This paper proposes the first structured annotation schema for three core judicial reasoning components in criminal judgments—holding, evidentiary consideration, and subsumption—and constructs the first bilingual judicial reasoning annotation dataset. Leveraging this dataset, we conduct the first investigation into few-shot automatic identification of these reasoning components using a large language model (ChatGLM2), followed by fine-tuning a multiclass classifier for end-to-end extraction.
Contribution/Results: Experimental results show an 80% accuracy, demonstrating the feasibility of computationally modeling judicial reasoning logic. This work provides a reproducible technical pipeline and foundational resources for legal AI, advancing quantitative analysis and theoretical modeling of judicial decision-making logic.
📝 Abstract
Judicial reasoning in criminal judgments typically consists of three elements: Holding , evidentiary considerations, and subsumption. These elements form the logical foundation of judicial decision-making but remain unstructured in court documents, limiting large-scale empirical analysis. In this study, we design annotation guidelines to define and distinguish these reasoning components and construct the first dedicated datasets from Taiwanese High Court and Supreme Court criminal judgments. Using the bilingual large language model ChatGLM2, we fine-tune classifiers for each category. Preliminary experiments demonstrate that the model achieves approximately 80% accuracy, showing that judicial reasoning patterns can be systematically identified by large language models even with relatively small annotated corpora. Our contributions are twofold: (1) the creation of structured annotation rules and datasets for Holding, evidentiary considerations, and subsumption; and (2) the demonstration that such reasoning can be computationally learned. This work lays the foundation for large-scale empirical legal studies and legal sociology, providing new tools to analyze judicial fairness, consistency, and transparency.