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

Abstract: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: this https URL

This article has been peer reviewed and formally published in the Journal of Computational Law and Legal Technology (JCLLT). The final Version of Record is available at: this https URL

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2603.08286 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2603.08286v2 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewJCLLT62029649 DOI(s) linking to related resources