Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping the future of the judicial system. To understand this development, this study used the PRISMA workflow to screen literature from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection from 2015 to 2025. The study included 610 publications in a bibliometric analysis and systematic review. The findings reveal an exponential increase in research output and the emergence of an international collaborative network centered on China and the United States. Scientific mapping reveals a shift in how the literature conceptualizes AI’s role, from a mere efficiency-enhancing tool toward a prospective cognitive partner in judicial tasks. The field has gradually formed a three-part knowledge structure centered on computational techniques, predictive modeling, and ethical and governance issues. Despite these advances, three structural challenges continue to impede progress: the tension between algorithmic explainability and judicial transparency, the persistent impact of data bias, and the uneven distribution of research across the stages of the judicial process. Future work must foster explainable AI (XAI) that aligns with judicial norms, develop full-cycle mechanisms to manage bias, strengthen interdisciplinary cooperation, and expand AI applications across the entire judicial chain to support the development of reliable and responsible judicial intelligence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: