Summarization of legal case judgement documents is a challenging problem in Legal NLP. However, not much analyses exist on how different families of summarization models (e.g., extractive vs. abstractive) perform when applied to legal case documents. This question is particularly important since many recent transformer-based abstractive summarization models have restrictions on the number of input tokens, and legal documents are known to be very long. Also, it is an open question on how best to evaluate legal case document summarization systems. In this paper, we carry out extensive experiments with several extractive and abstractive summarization methods (both supervised and unsupervised) over three legal summarization datasets that we have developed. Our analyses, that includes evaluation by law practitioners, lead to several interesting insights on legal summarization in specific and long document summarization in general.
翻译:法律案例判决文件的总结是法律文献中一个具有挑战性的问题。然而,对于在应用法律案例文件时,对总结模型(例如,采掘模型与抽象模型)的不同组合是如何发挥作用的,并没有多少分析。这个问题特别重要,因为最近许多基于变压器的抽象总结模型对输入牌的数量有限制,而且法律文件已知时间很长。此外,对于如何最好地评价法律案例文件总结系统,这是一个尚未解决的问题。在本文中,我们对我们开发的三种法律总结数据集进行了广泛的采掘和抽象总结方法(既包括受监督又不受监督)的实验。我们的分析,包括法律从业人员的评估,导致对具体和长期文件汇总法化的一些有意思的洞察力。