Argumentative Segmentation Enhancement for Legal Summarization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.05081v1
• Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 07:29:18 GMT
• Title: Argumentative Segmentation Enhancement for Legal Summarization
• Authors: Huihui Xu, Kevin Ashley
• Abstract summary: GPT-3.5 is used to generate summaries based on argumentative segments. In terms of automatic evaluation metrics, our method generates higher quality argumentative summaries.
• Score: 0.913755431537592
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: We use the combination of argumentative zoning [1] and a legal argumentative scheme to create legal argumentative segments. Based on the argumentative segmentation, we propose a novel task of classifying argumentative segments of legal case decisions. GPT-3.5 is used to generate summaries based on argumentative segments. In terms of automatic evaluation metrics, our method generates higher quality argumentative summaries while leaving out less relevant context as compared to GPT-4 and non-GPT models.

Related papers

• Exploring Key Point Analysis with Pairwise Generation and Graph Partitioning [61.73411954056032]
  Key Point Analysis (KPA) continues to be a significant and unresolved issue within the field of argument mining. We propose a novel approach for KPA with pairwise generation and graph partitioning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-17T13:44:29Z)
• Argue with Me Tersely: Towards Sentence-Level Counter-Argument Generation [62.069374456021016]
  We present the ArgTersely benchmark for sentence-level counter-argument generation. We also propose Arg-LlaMA for generating high-quality counter-argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-21T06:51:34Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way. Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Towards Argument-Aware Abstractive Summarization of Long Legal Opinions with Summary Reranking [6.9827388859232045]
  We propose a simple approach for the abstractive summarization of long legal opinions that considers the argument structure of the document. Our approach involves using argument role information to generate multiple candidate summaries, then reranking these candidates based on alignment with the document's argument structure. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on a dataset of long legal opinions and show that it outperforms several strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T13:44:45Z)
• The Legal Argument Reasoning Task in Civil Procedure [2.079168053329397]
  We present a new NLP task and dataset from the domain of the U.S. civil procedure. Each instance of the dataset consists of a general introduction to the case, a particular question, and a possible solution argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-05T17:41:00Z)
• ArgLegalSumm: Improving Abstractive Summarization of Legal Documents with Argument Mining [0.2538209532048867]
  We introduce a technique to capture the argumentative structure of legal documents by integrating argument role labeling into the summarization process. Experiments with pretrained language models show that our proposed approach improves performance over strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-04T15:55:56Z)
• Mining Legal Arguments in Court Decisions [43.09204050756282]
  We develop a new annotation scheme for legal arguments in proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights. Second, we compile and annotate a large corpus of 373 court decisions. Third, we train an argument mining model that outperforms state-of-the-art models in the legal NLP domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-12T08:59:55Z)
• Towards Full-Fledged Argument Search: A Framework for Extracting and Clustering Arguments from Unstructured Text [0.0]
  Argument search aims at identifying arguments in natural language texts. Existing frameworks address only specific components of argument search. We propose a framework for addressing these shortcomings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-30T23:05:05Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)
• Aspect-Controlled Neural Argument Generation [65.91772010586605]
  We train a language model for argument generation that can be controlled on a fine-grained level to generate sentence-level arguments for a given topic, stance, and aspect. Our evaluation shows that our generation model is able to generate high-quality, aspect-specific arguments. These arguments can be used to improve the performance of stance detection models via data augmentation and to generate counter-arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T20:17:22Z)

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.