ContractNLI: A Dataset for Document-level Natural Language Inference for Contracts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.01799v1
• Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 03:22:31 GMT
• Title: ContractNLI: A Dataset for Document-level Natural Language Inference for Contracts
• Authors: Yuta Koreeda and Christopher D. Manning
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 39.75232199445175
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Reviewing contracts is a time-consuming procedure that incurs large expenses to companies and social inequality to those who cannot afford it. In this work, we propose "document-level natural language inference (NLI) for contracts", a novel, real-world application of NLI that addresses such problems. In this task, a system is given a set of hypotheses (such as "Some obligations of Agreement may survive termination.") 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 as well as identifying "evidence" for the decision as spans in the contract. We annotated and release the largest corpus to date consisting of 607 annotated contracts. We then show that existing models fail badly on our task and introduce a strong baseline, which (1) models evidence identification as multi-label classification over spans instead of trying to predict start and end tokens, and (2) employs more sophisticated context segmentation for dealing with long documents. We also show that linguistic characteristics of contracts, such as negations by exceptions, are contributing to the difficulty of this task and that there is much room for improvement.

Related papers

• 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)
• PropSegmEnt: A Large-Scale Corpus for Proposition-Level Segmentation and Entailment Recognition [63.51569687229681]
  We argue for the need to recognize the textual entailment relation of each proposition in a sentence individually. We propose PropSegmEnt, a corpus of over 45K propositions annotated by expert human raters. Our dataset structure resembles the tasks of (1) segmenting sentences within a document to the set of propositions, and (2) classifying the entailment relation of each proposition with respect to a different yet topically-aligned document.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-21T04:03:33Z)
• Formal Modeling and Analysis of Legal Contracts using ContractCheck [0.0]
  textitContractCheck allows consistency analysis of legal contracts, in particular Sales Purchase Agreements (SPAs) The analysis relies on an encoding of the premises for the execution of the clauses of an SPA as well as the proposed consistency constraints using decidable fragments of first-order logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-06T22:03:11Z)
• ConReader: Exploring Implicit Relations in Contracts for Contract Clause Extraction [84.0634340572349]
  We study automatic Contract Clause Extraction (CCE) by modeling implicit relations in legal contracts. In this work, we first comprehensively analyze the complexity issues of contracts and distill out three implicit relations commonly found in contracts. We propose a novel framework ConReader to exploit the above three relations for better contract understanding and improving CCE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T02:15:18Z)
• 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)
• CLAUSEREC: A Clause Recommendation Framework for AI-aided Contract Authoring [7.3246387015020025]
  We introduce the task of clause recommendation, as a first step to aid and accelerate the author-ing of contract documents. We propose a two-staged pipeline to first predict if a specific clause type is relevant to be added in a contract, and then recommend the top clauses for the given type based on the contract context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-26T09:20:16Z)
• Lexically-constrained Text Generation through Commonsense Knowledge Extraction and Injection [62.071938098215085]
  We focus on the Commongen benchmark, wherein the aim is to generate a plausible sentence for a given set of input concepts. We propose strategies for enhancing the semantic correctness of the generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-19T23:23:40Z)
• A Benchmark for Lease Contract Review [9.249443355045969]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-20T15:50:50Z)
• The Extraordinary Failure of Complement Coercion Crowdsourcing [50.599433903377374]
  Crowdsourcing has eased and scaled up the collection of linguistic annotation in recent years. We aim to collect annotated data for this phenomenon by reducing it to either of two known tasks: Explicit Completion and Natural Language Inference. In both cases, crowdsourcing resulted in low agreement scores, even though we followed the same methodologies as in previous work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-12T19:04:04Z)

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.