The Conceptual Justification and Review Approaches of Algorithmic Evidence in the Digital-Intelligence Era

Chen Laiyao

doi:10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2025120080

Volume 43 Issue 6

Dec. 2026

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition) > 2026 > 42(6): 104-115

Chen Laiyao. The Conceptual Justification and Review Approaches of Algorithmic Evidence in the Digital-Intelligence Era[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2026, 42(6): 104-115. doi: 10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2025120080

Citation:

Chen Laiyao. The Conceptual Justification and Review Approaches of Algorithmic Evidence in the Digital-Intelligence Era[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2026, 42(6): 104-115. doi: 10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2025120080

Citation:

PDF( 884 KB)

The Conceptual Justification and Review Approaches of Algorithmic Evidence in the Digital-Intelligence Era

doi: 10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2025120080

Chen Laiyao

Law Teaching and Research Department, Beijing Police College, Beijing 102202, China

Received Date: 2025-12-20
Publish Date: 2026-12-01

Abstract

Abstract

In the new form of digital and intelligent governance, algorithm-generated conclusions constitute an important form of evidence for the identification of illegal facts. The standardized and systematic review of algorithmic evidence is not only essential to the fairness and justice of individual cases, but also crucial to improving the level of the rule of law in social governance in the digital-intelligent era. However, due to its unique evidential attributes and technical features, algorithmic evidence can hardly be incorporated into the review scope of legal causation, fails to fit within the existing statutory evidence framework, and cannot directly prove its own authenticity, rendering traditional rules of evidence review inapplicable. Therefore, on the basis of retaining the core value of the traditional evidence review mechanism, it is necessary to integrate the thinking of algorithmic technology governance: reconstruct the relevance review rules with algorithmic relevance reasoning and review mechanisms, optimize the legality review rules with algorithmic trust mechanisms, and innovate the algorithmic reliability review mechanism to strengthen the evidence authenticity review system.
- algorithmic evidence,
- relevance of evidence,
- technological governance,
- normative review

FullText(HTML)

References(48)

References

[1]	维克托·迈尔-舍恩伯格, 肯尼思·库克耶. 大数据时代: 生活、工作与思维的大变革[M]. 盛杨燕, 周涛, 译. 杭州: 浙江人民出版社, 2013.
[2]	Jordan M I, Mitchell T M. Machine learning: trends, perspectives, and prospects [J]. Science, 2015, 6245(349): 255-260.
[3]	金观涛. 消失的真实[M]. 北京: 中信出版集团, 2022.
[4]	Mussgnug A M. A philosophy of data[J/OL]. Category Science & Technology (2020-04-15) [2026-01-06]. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.09990.
[5]	Burton A G, Chun W H K, Bounegru L, et al. Algorithmic Authenticity[M]. Lüneburg: Meson Press, 2023.
[6]	潘金贵. 数字时代刑事证据运用的风险及其规制: 以算法证据为分析视角[J]. 法治研究, 2024(6): 26-42. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-1455.2024.06.003
[7]	张迪. 刑事诉讼中的算法证据: 概念、机理及其运用[J]. 河南大学学报(社会科学版), 2023, 63(3): 36-42, 153. doi: 10.15991/j.cnki.411028.2023.03.001
[8]	谢登科. 人工智能证据的类型分析与规则建构[J]. 学习与探索, 2025(3): 62-72, 175, 2. doi: 10.20231/j.cnki.xxyts.2025.03.008
[9]	杨继文. 算法证据: 作为证据的算法及其适用规则前瞻[J]. 地方立法研究, 2022, 7(3): 37-51.
[10]	胡铭. 论数字时代刑事证据的三元结构[J]. 中外法学, 2025, 37(1): 45-64. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-4875.2025.01.003
[11]	马明亮, 王士博. 论大数据证据的证明力规则[J]. 证据科学, 2021, 29(6): 645-656. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-1226.2021.06.001
[12]	田野, 张玮. 抓好数字检察“关键变量” 实现高质量发展“最大增量”[N]. 检察日报, 2022-11-20(1).
[13]	元轶. 大数据证据二元实物证据属性及客观校验标准[J]. 山西大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2021, 44(5): 143-152. doi: 10.13451/j.cnki.shanxi.univ(phil.soc.).2021.05.017
[14]	郭华. 资金分析报告的功能及其证据归属的风险控制: 基于公安机关“金析为证”的思考[J]. 法学, 2025(6): 179-192.
[15]	孙珊. 大数据证明的司法适用与理论检视[J]. 北京科技大学学报(社会科学版), 2025, 41(1): 70-71. doi: 10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2024010112
[16]	陈伶俐. 证据相关性的判断与规则构建[J]. 法律适用(司法案例), 2017(24): 66-71.
[17]	李光奇, 陈博文. 如何确保大数据证据实现预期证明效力[N]. 检察日报, 2022-05-11(3).
[18]	庄伟, 陈禹橦, 张杨杨. 大数据证据在互联网金融犯罪案件中的审查运用[J]. 人民检察, 2022(20): 48-53.
[19]	哈特. 法律的概念[M]. 许家馨, 李冠宜, 译. 北京: 法律出版社, 2006.
[20]	何家弘, 邓昌智, 张桂勇, 等. 大数据侦查给证据法带来的挑战[J]. 人民检察, 2018(1): 54-57.
[21]	爱德华·J. 伊姆温克尔里德. 科学证据的秘密与审查[M]. 王进喜, 译. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2020.
[22]	刘品新. 论大数据证据[J]. 环球法律评论, 2019, 41(1): 21-34.
[23]	崔靖梓. 算法歧视挑战下平等权保护的危机与应对[J]. 法律科学(西北政法大学学报), 2019, 37(3): 29-42. doi: 10.16290/j.cnki.1674-5205.2019.03.013
[24]	袁康. 社会监管理念下金融科技算法黑箱的制度因应[J]. 华中科技大学学报(社会科学版), 2020, 34(1): 102-110. doi: 10.19648/j.cnki.jhustss1980.2020.01.13
[25]	刘金友. 证据法学[M]. 北京: 中国政法大学出版社, 2001.
[26]	王怀勇. 金融科技的算法风险及其法律规制[J]. 政法论丛, 2021(1): 105-116.
[27]	姚尚建. 数字治理中的权力控制与权利破茧[J]. 理论与改革, 2022(3): 130-140, 156. doi: 10.13553/j.cnki.llygg.2022.03.011
[28]	许凯. 大数据监管证券欺诈行为的法制完善[N]. 中国社会科学报, 2019-11-13(5).
[29]	刘东亮, 闫玥蓉. 大数据分析中的相关性和因果关系[J]. 国家检察官学院学报, 2023, 31(2): 23-41.
[30]	黄健. 刑事司法证明中大数据相关关系的局限作用论[J]. 清华法学, 2023, 17(2): 22-39.
[31]	叶翔宇. 刑事诉讼中的预测性证据: 属性、风险与适用规则[J]. 北京科技大学学报(社会科学版), 2026, 42(1): 88-89.
[32]	Diver C S. The optimal precision of administrative rules [J]. The Yale Law Journal, 1983, 93(1): 65-109.
[33]	魏斌, 郑志峰. 刑事案件事实认定的人工智能方法[J]. 刑事技术, 2018, 43(6): 471-476.
[34]	哈特, 托尼·奥诺尔. 法律中的因果关系[M]. 张绍谦, 孙战国, 译. 北京: 中国政法大学出版社, 2005.
[35]	宋粉鲜, 陈世文. 统计学基础[M]. 北京: 现代教育出版社, 2011.
[36]	罗维鹏. 论刑事证据的概率分析[J]. 证据科学, 2023, 31(2): 174-188.
[37]	周蔚. 大数据在事实认定中作用机制分析[J]. 中国政法大学学报, 2015(6): 64-82, 160.
[38]	Broeders A P A. Some observations on the use of probability scales in forensic identification [J]. Forensic Linguistics, 1999, 6(2): 228-241.
[39]	宁馨. 论人脸识别结果的证据种类归属[J]. 证据科学. 2025, 33(1): 103-119.
[40]	万春. 网络犯罪指导性案例实务指引[M]. 北京: 中国检察出版社, 2018.
[41]	林喜芬. 大数据证据在刑事司法中的运用初探[J]. 法学论坛, 2021, 36(3): 27-36.
[42]	Landgrebe J. Certifiable AI[J/OL]. Applied Sciences (2022-12-21)[2025-09-11]. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031050.2022.12.1050.
[43]	袁康. 可信算法的法律规制[J]. 东方法学, 2021(3): 5-21.
[44]	陈禹橦. 资金数据分析报告证据化符合现实司法需求[N]. 检察日报, 2025-03-22(3).
[45]	栗峥. 印证的证明原理与理论塑造[J]. 中国法学, 2019(1): 264-283.
[46]	Desai D R, Kroll J A. Trust but verify: a guide to algorithms and the law [J]. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 2017, 31(1): 1-64.
[47]	Chang Y P, Wang X, Wang J D, et al. A survey on evaluation of large language models [J]. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 2024, 15(3): 1-45.
[48]	郭小东. 从“可解释”到“可信任”: 人工智能治理的逻辑重构[J]. 北京工业大学学报(社会科学版), 2025, 25(6): 117-135.