REVIEW 1 cited by
LawSum: A weakly supervised approach for Indian Legal Document Summarization
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Unlike the courts in western countries, public records of Indian judiciary are completely unstructured and noisy. No large scale publicly available annotated datasets of Indian legal documents exist till date. This limits the scope for legal analytics research. In this work, we propose a new dataset consisting of over 10,000 judgements delivered by the supreme court of India and their corresponding hand written summaries. The proposed dataset is pre-processed by normalising common legal abbreviations, handling spelling variations in named entities, handling bad punctuations and accurate sentence tokenization. Each sentence is tagged with their rhetorical roles. We also annotate each judgement with several attributes like date, names of the plaintiffs, defendants and the people representing them, judges who delivered the judgement, acts/statutes that are cited and the most common citations used to refer the judgement. Further, we propose an automatic labelling technique for identifying sentences which have summary worthy information. We demonstrate that this auto labeled data can be used effectively to train a weakly supervised sentence extractor with high accuracy. Some possible applications of this dataset besides legal document summarization can be in retrieval, citation analysis and prediction of decisions by a particular judge.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
A Comprehensive Survey on Legal Summarization: Challenges and Future Directions
A systematic survey of legal summarization finds a field dominated by English common-law datasets, ROUGE-based evaluation, and few human or expert validation studies.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.