ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
The legalization of international instruments: a hybrid RAG scoring framework based on chain-of-thought prompting.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Accurately evaluating the degree of legalization of international instruments is analytically valuable for assessing the level of institutionalization of interstate cooperative arrangements. However, conventional assessment approaches rely heavily on specialized legal expertise, and the inherent efficiency constraints of manual analysis make systematic evaluation across large-scale instrument corpora exceedingly difficult. Methods: To address the lack of automated scoring tools in this domain, this study introduces a hybrid retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) scoring framework based on chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. Based on the legalization conceptual framework proposed by Abbott and Snidal, this study constructs a five-level coding standard that covers the three dimensions of obligation, precision, and delegation, and accordingly designs a stepwise binary decision process to develop the corresponding CoT prompt template. In parallel, this study constructs a vector-indexed clause database comprising 2,611 expert-annotated samples from the ASEAN instrument corpus, providing retrieval-augmented semantic references for the scoring task. The retrieval mechanism incorporates an adaptive quality-weighted ranking strategy and employs an additional pre-trained model to perform secondary filtering of candidate results. To evaluate the effectiveness of the scoring framework, two independent test sets were constructed from ASEAN instruments and documents from other major regional organizations, respectively, containing 254 and 255 expert-annotated samples. Results: GPT-5.2 and GPT-4o, based on this architecture, significantly outperform the baseline prompting strategy, traditional machine learning methods (TF-IDF+LR), and the fine-tuned pre-trained language model (Legal-BERT) on the international instrument scoring task. Among all evaluated models, GPT-5.2 exhibits the strongest overall performance. Based on the averaged outcomes of three independent runs, the model attained QWK scores of 0.806 and 0.788, and MAE scores of 0.089 and 0.084, on the ASEAN instrument test set and the test set of other major regional organizations, respectively, demonstrating a substantially high degree of agreement with human expert ratings. Discussion: These findings indicate that integrating CoT prompting with the RAG pipeline improves LLM performance in scoring the degree of legalization of international legal documents. This provides methodological and technical foundations for large-scale institutional empirical analysis in ASEAN and broader legal systems, and points toward future extensions of the framework to other regional and multilateral legal orders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.