Towards Just, Fair and Interpretable Methods for Judicial Subset Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many judicial systems -- including the United States courts of appeals, the European Court of Justice, the UK Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada -- a subset of judges is selected from the entire judicial body for each case in order to hear the arguments and decide the judgment. Ideally, the subset selected is representative, i.e., the decision of the subset would match what the decision of the entire judicial body would have been had they all weighed in on the case. Further, the process should be fair in that all judges should have similar workloads, and the selection process should not allow for certain judge's opinions to be silenced or amplified via case assignments. Lastly, in order to be practical and trustworthy, the process should also be interpretable, easy to use, and (if algorithmic) computationally efficient. In this paper, we propose an algorithmic method for the judicial subset selection problem that satisfies all of the above criteria. The method satisfies fairness by design, and we prove that it has optimal representativeness asymptotically for a large range of parameters and under noisy information models about judge opinions -- something no existing methods can provably achieve. We then assess the benefits of our approach empirically by counterfactually comparing against the current practice and recent alternative algorithmic approaches using cases from the United States courts of appeals database.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".