Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (4):305-345 (2006)
|Abstract||We describe research carried out as part of a text summarisation project for the legal domain for which we use a new XML corpus of judgments of the UK House of Lords. These judgments represent a particularly important part of public discourse due to the role that precedents play in English law. We present experimental results using a range of features and machine learning techniques for the task of predicting the rhetorical status of sentences and for the task of selecting the most summary-worthy sentences from a document. Results for these components are encouraging as they achieve state-of-the-art accuracy using robust, automatically generated cue phrase information. Sample output from the system illustrates the potential of summarisation technology for legal information management systems and highlights the utility of our rhetorical annotation scheme as a model of legal discourse, which provides a clear means for structuring summaries and tailoring them to different types of users.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Wim Peters, Maria-Teresa Sagri & Daniela Tiscornia (2007). The Structuring of Legal Knowledge in Lois. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (2):117-135.
Jacques Savoy (1993). Searching Information in Legal Hypertext Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (3):205-232.
Caroline Uyttendaele, Marie-Francine Moens & Jos Dumortier (1998). Salomon: Automatic Abstracting of Legal Cases for Effective Access to Court Decisions. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6 (1).
Guiraude Lame (2004). Using NLP Techniques to Identify Legal Ontology Components: Concepts and Relations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):379-396.
Kevin D. Ashley & Stefanie Brüninghaus (2009). Automatically Classifying Case Texts and Predicting Outcomes. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (2):125-165.
Marie-Francine Moens (2001). Innovative Techniques for Legal Text Retrieval. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (1).
Luuk Matthijssen (1998). A Task-Based Interface to Legal Databases. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6 (1).
M. Saravanan & B. Ravindran (2010). Identification of Rhetorical Roles for Segmentation and Summarization of a Legal Judgment. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (1):45-76.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?