跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.03051 · v1

Unlocking Criminal Court Decisions: Flexible Information Extraction for Empirical Legal Research

首次提交 2026-11-02 20:46
版本更新 2026-11-02 20:46
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:41
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Criminal verdicts contain descriptions of criminal behavior that can support quantitative legal research, but structuring them requires attributes and extraction rules that cannot always be fully specified in advance. We present an LLM-based pipeline that builds a structured dataset through attribute exploration, text span extraction, and value normalization, guided by annotation instructions that legal experts can refine. We evaluate it on two traffic offenses: driving under the influence (DUI) and driving despite a ban (DDB). For DUI, revising the instructions was associated with higher extraction accuracy (from 52% to 70% of correctly extracted values) and higher agreement between human annotators. Repeated runs of the same model agreed with each other more than with the gold annotations, showing that consistent output is not necessarily correct, while disagreement between annotators and between models helped reveal unclear instructions. For DDB, where the instructions defined fixed categories and output formats, agreement was high for most attributes.

作者备注:Accepted for publication in the proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2026)

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-02 20:46 · 最新观测版本

Unlocking Criminal Court Decisions: Flexible Information Extraction for Empirical Legal Research

Criminal verdicts contain descriptions of criminal behavior that can support quantitative legal research, but structuring them requires attributes and extraction rules that cannot always be fully specified in advance. We present an LLM-based pipeline that builds a structured dataset through attribute exploration, text span extraction, and value normalization, guided by annotation instructions that legal experts can refine. We evaluate it on two traffic offenses: driving under the influence (DUI) and driving despite a ban (DDB). For DUI, revising the instructions was associated with higher extraction accuracy (from 52% to 70% of correctly extracted values) and higher agreement between human annotators. Repeated runs of the same model agreed with each other more than with the gold annotations, showing that consistent output is not necessarily correct, while disagreement between annotators and between models helped reveal unclear instructions. For DDB, where the instructions defined fixed categories and output formats, agreement was high for most attributes.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗