法律案件文书摘要:抽取与抽象方法及其评价

Q3 Environmental Science AACL Bioflux Pub Date : 2022-10-14 DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2210.07544
A. Shukla, Paheli Bhattacharya, Soham Poddar, Rajdeep Mukherjee, Kripabandhu Ghosh, Pawan Goyal, Saptarshi Ghosh
{"title":"法律案件文书摘要:抽取与抽象方法及其评价","authors":"A. Shukla, Paheli Bhattacharya, Soham Poddar, Rajdeep Mukherjee, Kripabandhu Ghosh, Pawan Goyal, Saptarshi Ghosh","doi":"10.48550/arXiv.2210.07544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summarization of legal case judgement documents is a challenging problem in Legal NLP. However, not much analyses exist on how different families of summarization models (e.g., extractive vs. abstractive) perform when applied to legal case documents. This question is particularly important since many recent transformer-based abstractive summarization models have restrictions on the number of input tokens, and legal documents are known to be very long. Also, it is an open question on how best to evaluate legal case document summarization systems. In this paper, we carry out extensive experiments with several extractive and abstractive summarization methods (both supervised and unsupervised) over three legal summarization datasets that we have developed. Our analyses, that includes evaluation by law practitioners, lead to several interesting insights on legal summarization in specific and long document summarization in general.","PeriodicalId":39298,"journal":{"name":"AACL Bioflux","volume":"16 1","pages":"1048-1064"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legal Case Document Summarization: Extractive and Abstractive Methods and their Evaluation\",\"authors\":\"A. Shukla, Paheli Bhattacharya, Soham Poddar, Rajdeep Mukherjee, Kripabandhu Ghosh, Pawan Goyal, Saptarshi Ghosh\",\"doi\":\"10.48550/arXiv.2210.07544\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Summarization of legal case judgement documents is a challenging problem in Legal NLP. However, not much analyses exist on how different families of summarization models (e.g., extractive vs. abstractive) perform when applied to legal case documents. This question is particularly important since many recent transformer-based abstractive summarization models have restrictions on the number of input tokens, and legal documents are known to be very long. Also, it is an open question on how best to evaluate legal case document summarization systems. In this paper, we carry out extensive experiments with several extractive and abstractive summarization methods (both supervised and unsupervised) over three legal summarization datasets that we have developed. Our analyses, that includes evaluation by law practitioners, lead to several interesting insights on legal summarization in specific and long document summarization in general.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AACL Bioflux\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"1048-1064\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AACL Bioflux\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.07544\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Environmental Science\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AACL Bioflux","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.07544","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

案件判决书摘要是法律自然语言处理中的一个难题。然而,对于不同类型的摘要模型(例如,抽取型与抽象型)在应用于法律案例文件时的表现,并没有太多的分析。这个问题尤其重要,因为许多最新的基于转换器的抽象摘要模型对输入令牌的数量有限制,而且法律文档非常长。此外,如何最好地评估法律案件文件摘要系统也是一个悬而未决的问题。在本文中,我们在我们开发的三个法律摘要数据集上使用几种提取和抽象摘要方法(监督和无监督)进行了广泛的实验。我们的分析,包括法律从业人员的评估,导致了几个有趣的见解,具体的法律摘要和一般的长文件摘要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Legal Case Document Summarization: Extractive and Abstractive Methods and their Evaluation
Summarization of legal case judgement documents is a challenging problem in Legal NLP. However, not much analyses exist on how different families of summarization models (e.g., extractive vs. abstractive) perform when applied to legal case documents. This question is particularly important since many recent transformer-based abstractive summarization models have restrictions on the number of input tokens, and legal documents are known to be very long. Also, it is an open question on how best to evaluate legal case document summarization systems. In this paper, we carry out extensive experiments with several extractive and abstractive summarization methods (both supervised and unsupervised) over three legal summarization datasets that we have developed. Our analyses, that includes evaluation by law practitioners, lead to several interesting insights on legal summarization in specific and long document summarization in general.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
AACL Bioflux
AACL Bioflux Environmental Science-Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
HaRiM^+: Evaluating Summary Quality with Hallucination Risk PESE: Event Structure Extraction using Pointer Network based Encoder-Decoder Architecture Bipartite-play Dialogue Collection for Practical Automatic Evaluation of Dialogue Systems Local Structure Matters Most in Most Languages Unsupervised Domain Adaptation for Sparse Retrieval by Filling Vocabulary and Word Frequency Gaps
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1