{"title":"Summarizing judicial documents: a hybrid extractive- abstractive model with legal domain knowledge","authors":"Yan Gao, Jie Wu, Zhengtao Liu, 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.
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.