cs.CLMar 5, 2026

Guidelines for the Annotation and Visualization of Legal Argumentation Structures in Chinese Judicial Decisions

Authors: Kun Chen, Xianglei Liao, Kaixue Fei, Yi Xing, Xinrui Li

Organizations: Law School, Nanjing University.

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

This Guideline presents a systematic and operationalizable annotation framework for representing legal argumentation structures in judicial decisions. Grounded in theories of legal reasoning and argumentation, the framework aims to reveal the logical organization of judicial reasoning and provide a reliable foundation for computational analysis. At the element level, the Guideline distinguishes between the non-propositional layer and the propositional layer. The non-propositional layer consists of two elements: Issue and Non-argumentative Component. At the propositional level, the Guideline defines four proposition types: General Normative Judgment, Particular Normative Judgment, General Factual Judgment, and Particular Factual Judgment. At the relational level, five relation types are defined to represent argumentative structures: Support, Attack, Joint, Match, and Identity. These relations capture positive and negative argumentative connections, conjunctive reasoning structures, correspondences between legal norms and case facts, and identity or semantic equivalence between propositions. The Guideline further specifies formal representation rules and visualization conventions for both basic and nested structures, enabling consistent visualization of complex argumentation patterns. In addition, it establishes a standardized annotation workflow and consistency control mechanisms to ensure the reproducibility and reliability of annotated data. By providing a clear conceptual model, formal representation rules, and practical annotation procedures, this Guideline supports large-scale analysis of judicial reasoning and future research in legal argument mining, computational modeling of legal reasoning, and AI-assisted legal analysis.

More in this topic

Legal Document Analysis

Legal document analysis uses language technologies to classify, extract, compare, and reason over statutes, contracts, policies, and court decisions.

See all 72 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
Apr 10, 2026

NyayaMind- A Framework for Transparent Legal Reasoning and Judgment Prediction in the Indian Legal System

Court Judgment Prediction and Explanation (CJPE) aims to predict a judicial decision and provide a legally grounded explanation for a given case based on the facts, legal issues, arguments, cited statutes, and relevant precedents. For such systems to be practically useful in judicial or legal research settings, they must not only achieve high predictive performance but also generate transparent and structured legal reasoning that aligns with established judicial practices. In this work, we present NyayaMind, an open-source framework designed to enable transparent and scalable legal reasoning for the Indian judiciary. The proposed framework integrates retrieval, reasoning, and verification mechanisms to emulate the structured decision-making process typically followed in courts. Specifically, NyayaMind consists of two main components: a Retrieval Module and a Prediction Module. The Retrieval Module employs a RAG pipeline to identify legally relevant statutes and precedent cases from large-scale legal corpora, while the Prediction Module utilizes reasoning-oriented LLMs fine-tuned for the Indian legal domain to generate structured outputs including issues, arguments, rationale, and the final decision. Our extensive results and expert evaluation demonstrate that NyayaMind significantly improves the quality of explanation and evidence alignment compared to existing CJPE approaches, providing a promising step toward trustworthy AI-assisted legal decision support systems.

Parjanya Aditya Shukla, Shubham Kumar Nigam, Debtanu Datta +5

IIT Kanpur, India · University of Birmingham, Dubai, United Arab Emirates · IIT Kharagpur, India +2

Legal Judgment PredictionLegal Reasoning
AskPDF
Mar 9, 2026

LAMUS: A Large-Scale Corpus for Legal Argument Mining from U.S. Caselaw using LLMs

Legal argument mining aims to identify and classify the functional components of judicial reasoning, such as facts, issues, rules, analysis, and conclusions. Progress in this area is limited by the lack of large-scale, high-quality annotated datasets for U.S. caselaw, particularly at the state level. This paper introduces LAMUS, a sentence-level legal argument mining corpus constructed from U.S. Supreme Court decisions and Texas criminal appellate opinions. The dataset is created using a data-centric pipeline that combines large-scale case collection, LLM-based automatic annotation, and targeted human-in-the-loop quality refinement. We formulate legal argument mining as a six-class sentence classification task and evaluate multiple general-purpose and legal-domain language models under zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought prompting strategies, with LegalBERT as a supervised baseline. Results show that chain-of-thought prompting substantially improves LLM performance, while domain-specific models exhibit more stable zero-shot behavior. LLM-assisted verification corrects nearly 20% of annotation errors, improving label consistency. Human verification achieves Cohen's Kappa of 0.85, confirming annotation quality. LAMUS provides a scalable resource and empirical insights for future legal NLP research. All code and datasets can be accessed for reproducibility on GitHub at: https://github.com/LavanyaPobbathi/LAMUS/tree/main

Serene Wang, Lavanya Pobbathi, Haihua Chen

University of North Texas Denton, Texas, USA

Legal NLPArgument MiningLegal Document AnalysisLLM-Assisted Annotation
AskPDF
Jun 4, 2026

HKJudge: A Legal Discourse-Annotated Corpus for Interpreting What Courts Find, How They Reason, and What They Rule

Court judgments are central to legal practice and jurisprudence, yet discourse analysis of Hong Kong judgments has received limited attention, owing largely to the absence of expert-annotated corpora. We introduce the Hong Kong Judgment Discourse Dataset (HKJudge), the first sentence-level expert-annotated legal discourse corpus. HKJudge includes criminal judgments across all five levels of HK's court hierarchy, comprising ∼\sim290k sentences and ∼\sim6.5 million tokens, fully annotated by legal linguistics experts. We design a two-tier discourse schema that captures what facts a court finds, how it reasons, and what it rules. At the sentence level, each sentence is assigned one of 26 rhetorical roles. At the span level, sentences are further annotated with three sentencing elements (charge, imprisonment term, fine). Ten legal linguistics annotators produced the annotations with an inter-annotator agreement of κ=0.8κ= 0.8. We formulate two tasks on HKJudge, termed rhetorical role classification and legal element extraction, and provide the first benchmark evaluation of four BERT-based models, two open-source LLMs under zero-shot and fine-tuning settings, and four commercial LLMs on both tasks. Our work demonstrates the value of sentence-level discourse annotation for modeling the structure of HK judgments and provides a rich data foundation for future work on legal judgment prediction. The HKJudge dataset and code are available at https://github.com/xuanxixi/HKJudge.

Xi Xuan, Wenxin Zhang, Yufei Zhou +2

City University of Hong Kong · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences

Legal NLPDocument Information ExtractionLegal Document Analysis
AskPDF