An Automated Framework for the Extraction of Semantic Legal Metadata from Legal Texts

Clicks: 60
ID: 283301
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #516 of 803 articles by views in arXiv

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 803 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Semantic legal metadata provides information that helps with understanding and interpreting legal provisions. Such metadata is therefore important for the systematic analysis of legal requirements. However, manually enhancing a large legal corpus with semantic metadata is prohibitively expensive. Our work is motivated by two observations: (1) the existing requirements engineering (RE) literature does not provide a harmonized view on the semantic metadata types that are useful for legal requirements analysis; (2) automated support for the extraction of semantic legal metadata is scarce, and it does not exploit the full potential of artificial intelligence technologies, notably natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML). Our objective is to take steps toward overcoming these limitations. To do so, we review and reconcile the semantic legal metadata types proposed in the RE literature. Subsequently, we devise an automated extraction approach for the identified metadata types using NLP and ML. We evaluate our approach through two case studies over the Luxembourgish legislation. Our results indicate a high accuracy in the generation of metadata annotations. In particular, in the two case studies, we were able to obtain precision scores of 97.2% and 82.4% and recall scores of 94.9% and 92.4%.
Reference Key
dann2020an Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Amin Sleimi; Nicolas Sannier; Mehrdad Sabetzadeh; Lionel Briand; Marcello Ceci; John Dann
Journal arXiv
Year 2020
DOI
DOI not found
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.