A Benchmark for Lease Contract Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.10386v1
• Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 15:50:50 GMT
• Title: A Benchmark for Lease Contract Review
• Authors: Spyretta Leivaditi, Julien Rossi, Evangelos Kanoulas
• Abstract summary: We tackle the problem of detecting two different types of elements that play an important role in a contract review. The latter are terms or sentences that indicate that there is some danger or other potentially problematic situation for one or more of the signing parties. We release a new benchmark dataset of 179 lease agreement documents that we have manually annotated with the entities and red flags they contain.
• Score: 9.249443355045969
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Extracting entities and other useful information from legal contracts is an important task whose automation can help legal professionals perform contract reviews more efficiently and reduce relevant risks. In this paper, we tackle the problem of detecting two different types of elements that play an important role in a contract review, namely entities and red flags. The latter are terms or sentences that indicate that there is some danger or other potentially problematic situation for one or more of the signing parties. We focus on supporting the review of lease agreements, a contract type that has received little attention in the legal information extraction literature, and we define the types of entities and red flags needed for that task. We release a new benchmark dataset of 179 lease agreement documents that we have manually annotated with the entities and red flags they contain, and which can be used to train and test relevant extraction algorithms. Finally, we release a new language model, called ALeaseBERT, pre-trained on this dataset and fine-tuned for the detection of the aforementioned elements, providing a baseline for further research

Related papers

• SparseCL: Sparse Contrastive Learning for Contradiction Retrieval [87.02936971689817]
  Contradiction retrieval refers to identifying and extracting documents that explicitly disagree with or refute the content of a query. Existing methods such as similarity search and crossencoder models exhibit significant limitations. We introduce SparseCL that leverages specially trained sentence embeddings designed to preserve subtle, contradictory nuances between sentences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-15T21:57:03Z)
• LegalPro-BERT: Classification of Legal Provisions by fine-tuning BERT Large Language Model [0.0]
  Contract analysis requires the identification and classification of key provisions and paragraphs within an agreement. LegalPro-BERT is a BERT transformer architecture model that we fine- tune to efficiently handle classification task for legal provisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T19:08:48Z)
• Generating Clarification Questions for Disambiguating Contracts [3.672364005691543]
  We introduce a novel legal NLP task that involves generating clarification questions for contracts. These questions aim to identify contract ambiguities on a document level, thereby assisting non-legal stakeholders. Experiments conducted on contracts sourced from the publicly available CUAD dataset show that ConRAP can detect ambiguities with an F2 score of 0.87.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-12T19:57:39Z)
• SAILER: Structure-aware Pre-trained Language Model for Legal Case Retrieval [75.05173891207214]
  Legal case retrieval plays a core role in the intelligent legal system. Most existing language models have difficulty understanding the long-distance dependencies between different structures. We propose a new Structure-Aware pre-traIned language model for LEgal case Retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-22T10:47:01Z)
• Same or Different? Diff-Vectors for Authorship Analysis [78.83284164605473]
  In classic'' authorship analysis a feature vector represents a document, the value of a feature represents (an increasing function of) the relative frequency of the feature in the document, and the class label represents the author of the document. Our experiments tackle same-author verification, authorship verification, and closed-set authorship attribution; while DVs are naturally geared for solving the 1st, we also provide two novel methods for solving the 2nd and 3rd.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-24T08:48:12Z)
• What to Read in a Contract? Party-Specific Summarization of Legal Obligations, Entitlements, and Prohibitions [27.92767201633733]
  Reviewing key obligations, entitlements, and prohibitions in legal contracts can be a tedious task due to their length and domain-specificity. We propose a new task of party-specific extractive summarization for legal contracts to facilitate faster reviewing and improved comprehension of rights and duties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T19:53:14Z)
• Agent-Specific Deontic Modality Detection in Legal Language [19.94131001761646]
  LEXDEMOD is a corpus of English contracts annotated with deontic modality expressed with respect to a contracting party or agent. We benchmark this dataset on two tasks: (i) agent-specific multi-label deontic modality classification, and (ii) agent-specific deontic modality and trigger span detection. Experiments show that the linguistic diversity of modal expressions in LEXDEMOD generalizes reasonably from lease to employment and rental agreements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-23T07:32:23Z)
• A Dataset on Malicious Paper Bidding in Peer Review [84.68308372858755]
  Malicious reviewers strategically bid in order to unethically manipulate the paper assignment. A critical impediment towards creating and evaluating methods to mitigate this issue is the lack of publicly-available data on malicious paper bidding. We release a novel dataset, collected from a mock conference activity where participants were instructed to bid either honestly or maliciously.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-24T20:23:33Z)
• Detecting Logical Relation In Contract Clauses [94.85352502638081]
  We develop an approach to automate the extraction of logical relations between clauses in a contract. The resulting approach should help contract authors detecting potential logical conflicts between clauses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-02T19:26:32Z)
• ContractNLI: A Dataset for Document-level Natural Language Inference for Contracts [39.75232199445175]
  We propose "document-level natural language inference (NLI) for contracts" A system is given a set of hypotheses and a contract, and it is asked to classify whether each hypothesis is "entailed by", "contradicting to" or "not mentioned by" (neutral to) the contract. We release the largest corpus to date consisting of 607 annotated contracts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-05T03:22:31Z)
• Multilevel Text Alignment with Cross-Document Attention [59.76351805607481]
  Existing alignment methods operate at a single, predefined level. We propose a new learning approach that equips previously established hierarchical attention encoders for representing documents with a cross-document attention component.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-03T02:52:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.