Skip to main content

Identifying Participant Mentions and Resolving Their Coreferences in Legal Court Judgements

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 11107))

Abstract

Legal court judgements have multiple participants (e.g. judge, complainant, petitioner, lawyer, etc.). They may be referred to in multiple ways, e.g., the same person may be referred as lawyer, counsel, learned counsel, advocate, as well as his/her proper name. For any analysis of legal texts, it is important to resolve such multiple mentions which are coreferences of the same participant. In this paper, we propose a supervised approach to this challenging task. To avoid human annotation efforts for Legal domain data, we exploit ACE 2005 dataset by mapping its entities to participants in Legal domain. We use basic Transfer Learning paradigm by training classification models on general purpose text (news in ACE 2005 data) and applying them to Legal domain text. We evaluate our approach on a sample annotated test dataset in Legal domain and demonstrate that it outperforms state-of-the-art baselines.

A. Gupta and D. Verma—This work was carried out during the internship at TCS Research, Pune. Both the authors contributed equally.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.isical.ac.in/~fire/2014/legal.html.

  2. 2.

    Noun Phrases with common noun as headword.

  3. 3.

    We used CRF++ (https://taku910.github.io/crfpp/).

References

  1. Agrawal, S., Joshi, A., Ross, J.C., Bhattacharyya, P., Wabgaonkar, H.M.: Are word embedding and dialogue act class-based features useful for coreference resolution in dialogue? In: Proceedings of PACLING (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Kofahi, K., Grom, B., Jackson, P.: Anaphora resolution in the extraction of treatment history language from court opinions by partial parsing. In: Proceedings of 7th ICAIL (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bagga, A., Baldwin, B.: Algorithms for scoring coreference chains. In: The First International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation Workshop on Linguistics Coreference, Granada , vol. 1, pp. 563–566 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cardellino, C., Teruel, M., Alemany, L.A., Villata, S.: A low-cost, high-coverage legal named entity recognizer, classifier and linker. In: Proceedings of 16th ICAIL (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cardellino, C., Teruel, M., Alemany, L.A., Villata, S.: Ontology population and alignment for the legal domain: YAGO, Wikipedia and LKIF. In: Proceedings of ISWC (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cheri, J., Bhattacharyya, P.: Coreference resolution to support IE from Indian classical music forums. In: Proceedings of RANLP, pp. 91–96 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dozier, C., Haschart, R.: Automatic extraction and linking of personal names in legal text. In: Proceedings of Recherche d’Informations Assistee par Ordinateur, RIAO 2000 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jackson, P., Al-Kofahi, K., Tyrrell, A., Vachher, A.: Information extraction from case law and retrieval of prior cases. Artif. Intell. 150, 239–290 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kumar, S., Reddy, P.K., Reddy, V.B., Singh, A.: Similarity analysis of legal judgments. In: Proceedings of the COMPUTE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lafferty, J.D., McCallum, A., Pereira, F.C.N.: Conditional random fields: probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2001, pp. 282–289. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2001). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=645530.655813

  11. Luo, X.: On coreference resolution performance metrics. In: Proceedings of HLT-EMNLP, pp. 25–32 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mochales, R., Moens, M.F.: Argumentation mining. Artif. Intell. Law 19(1), 1–22 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ng, V.: Machine learning for entity coreference resolution: a retrospective look at two decades of research. In: Proceedings of the 31st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 4877–4884 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Peng, H., Chang, K., Roth, D.: A joint framework for coreference resolution and mention head detection. In: CoNLL 2015, pp. 12–21 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Peng, H., Khashabi, D., Roth, D.: Solving hard coreference problems. In: NAACL HLT 2015, pp. 809–819 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pradhan, S., Luo, X., Recasens, M., Hovy, E., Ng, V., Strube, M.: Scoring coreference partitions of predicted mentions: a reference implementation. In: Proceedings of ACL (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Saravanan, M., Ravindran, B., Raman, S.: Improving legal information retrieval using an ontological framework. Artif. Intell. Law 17(2), 101–124 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shulayeva, O., Siddharthan, A., Wyner, A.: Recognizing cited facts and principles in legal judgements. Artif. Intell. Law 25(1), 107–126 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Soon, W.M., Ng, H.T., Lim, D.C.Y.: A machine learning approach to coreference resolution of noun phrases. Comput. Linguist. 27(4), 521–544 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Venturi, G.: Legal language and legal knowledge management applications. In: Francesconi, E., Montemagni, S., Peters, W., Tiscornia, D. (eds.) Semantic Processing of Legal Texts. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6036, pp. 3–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12837-0_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Vilain, M., Burger, J., Aberdeen, J., Connolly, D., Hirschman, L.: A model-theoretic coreference scoring scheme. In: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Message Understanding, pp. 45–52 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Walker, C., Strassel, S., Medero, J., Maeda, K.: ACE 2005 multilingual training corpus. Linguist. Data Consortium 57 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Yousfi-Monod, M., Farzindar, A., Lapalme, G.: Supervised machine learning for summarizing legal documents. In: Farzindar, A., Kešelj, V. (eds.) AI 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6085, pp. 51–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13059-5_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang, P., Koppaka, L.: Semantics-based legal citation network. In: Proceedings of the 11th ICAIL, pp. 123–130 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sachin Pawar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Gupta, A. et al. (2018). Identifying Participant Mentions and Resolving Their Coreferences in Legal Court Judgements. In: Sojka, P., Horák, A., Kopeček, I., Pala, K. (eds) Text, Speech, and Dialogue. TSD 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11107. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00794-2_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00794-2_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00793-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00794-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics