Summarizing judicial documents: a hybrid extractive- abstractive model with legal domain knowledge

IF 5.3 2区 社会学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Yan Gao, Jie Wu, Zhengtao Liu, Juan Li
{"title":"Summarizing judicial documents: a hybrid extractive- abstractive model with legal domain knowledge","authors":"Yan Gao,&nbsp;Jie Wu,&nbsp;Zhengtao Liu,&nbsp;Juan Li","doi":"10.1007/s10506-025-09435-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The automatic summarization of judgment documents is a challenging task due to their length and the dispersed nature of the important information they contain. The prevailing approach to tackling the summarization of lengthy documents involves the integration of both extractive and abstractive summarization models. However, current extractive models face challenges in capturing all essential details due to the scattered distribution of pertinent information within judgment documents. Additionally, the existing abstractive models still grapple with the problem of \"hallucinations\" which leads to generating inaccurate information. In our work, we proposed a novel hybrid legal summarization method that incorporates legal domain knowledge into both the extractive model and abstractive model. The method consists of two parts: (1) The rhetorical role of sentences is identified by the sentence-level sequence labeling method, and the rhetorical information is integrated into the extractive model based on WoBERT through the conditional normalization to ensure that the identification of key sentences is both precise and complete. (2) The pre-trained model RoFormer is combined with Seq2Seq to construct a long text summarization model, and the prior knowledge in the external resources and the document itself is introduced into the decoding process to improve the faithfulness and coherence of the composed summary. In addition, the contrastive learning strategy is employed during the training process to enhance the robustness of the abstractive model. Experimental results on the CAIL2020 dataset show that the proposed model is superior to the baseline methods. Furthermore, our method outperforms GPT and other LLMs in processing judgment documents.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51336,"journal":{"name":"Artificial Intelligence and Law","volume":"34 2","pages":"493 - 521"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Artificial Intelligence and Law","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10506-025-09435-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The automatic summarization of judgment documents is a challenging task due to their length and the dispersed nature of the important information they contain. The prevailing approach to tackling the summarization of lengthy documents involves the integration of both extractive and abstractive summarization models. However, current extractive models face challenges in capturing all essential details due to the scattered distribution of pertinent information within judgment documents. Additionally, the existing abstractive models still grapple with the problem of "hallucinations" which leads to generating inaccurate information. In our work, we proposed a novel hybrid legal summarization method that incorporates legal domain knowledge into both the extractive model and abstractive model. The method consists of two parts: (1) The rhetorical role of sentences is identified by the sentence-level sequence labeling method, and the rhetorical information is integrated into the extractive model based on WoBERT through the conditional normalization to ensure that the identification of key sentences is both precise and complete. (2) The pre-trained model RoFormer is combined with Seq2Seq to construct a long text summarization model, and the prior knowledge in the external resources and the document itself is introduced into the decoding process to improve the faithfulness and coherence of the composed summary. In addition, the contrastive learning strategy is employed during the training process to enhance the robustness of the abstractive model. Experimental results on the CAIL2020 dataset show that the proposed model is superior to the baseline methods. Furthermore, our method outperforms GPT and other LLMs in processing judgment documents.

司法文书摘要:具有法律领域知识的抽取-抽象混合模型
由于判决文件的长度和重要信息的分散性,自动摘要是一项具有挑战性的任务。处理冗长文档摘要的流行方法涉及提取和抽象摘要模型的集成。然而,由于判断文件中相关信息的分散分布,当前的提取模型在捕获所有基本细节方面面临挑战。此外,现有的抽象模型仍在努力解决导致产生不准确信息的“幻觉”问题。在我们的工作中,我们提出了一种新的混合法律摘要方法,该方法将法律领域知识结合到抽取模型和抽象模型中。该方法由两部分组成:(1)采用句子级序列标注方法识别句子的修辞角色,并通过条件归一化将修辞信息整合到基于WoBERT的提取模型中,确保关键句子的识别既精确又完整。(2)将预训练模型RoFormer与Seq2Seq相结合,构建长文本摘要模型,并将外部资源和文档本身的先验知识引入解码过程,提高合成摘要的可信度和连贯性。此外,在训练过程中采用了对比学习策略,增强了抽象模型的鲁棒性。在CAIL2020数据集上的实验结果表明,该模型优于基线方法。此外,我们的方法在处理判决文件方面优于GPT和其他llm。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
26.80%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Artificial Intelligence and Law is an international forum for the dissemination of original interdisciplinary research in the following areas: Theoretical or empirical studies in artificial intelligence (AI), cognitive psychology, jurisprudence, linguistics, or philosophy which address the development of formal or computational models of legal knowledge, reasoning, and decision making. In-depth studies of innovative artificial intelligence systems that are being used in the legal domain. Studies which address the legal, ethical and social implications of the field of Artificial Intelligence and Law. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following: Computational models of legal reasoning and decision making; judgmental reasoning, adversarial reasoning, case-based reasoning, deontic reasoning, and normative reasoning. Formal representation of legal knowledge: deontic notions, normative modalities, rights, factors, values, rules. Jurisprudential theories of legal reasoning. Specialized logics for law. Psychological and linguistic studies concerning legal reasoning. Legal expert systems; statutory systems, legal practice systems, predictive systems, and normative systems. AI and law support for legislative drafting, judicial decision-making, and public administration. Intelligent processing of legal documents; conceptual retrieval of cases and statutes, automatic text understanding, intelligent document assembly systems, hypertext, and semantic markup of legal documents. Intelligent processing of legal information on the World Wide Web, legal ontologies, automated intelligent legal agents, electronic legal institutions, computational models of legal texts. Ramifications for AI and Law in e-Commerce, automatic contracting and negotiation, digital rights management, and automated dispute resolution. Ramifications for AI and Law in e-governance, e-government, e-Democracy, and knowledge-based systems supporting public services, public dialogue and mediation. Intelligent computer-assisted instructional systems in law or ethics. Evaluation and auditing techniques for legal AI systems. Systemic problems in the construction and delivery of legal AI systems. Impact of AI on the law and legal institutions. Ethical issues concerning legal AI systems. In addition to original research contributions, the Journal will include a Book Review section, a series of Technology Reports describing existing and emerging products, applications and technologies, and a Research Notes section of occasional essays posing interesting and timely research challenges for the field of Artificial Intelligence and Law. Financial support for the Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law is provided by the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书