Multi-language transfer learning for low-resource legal case summarization

Analyzing and evaluating legal case reports are labor-intensive tasks for judges and lawyers, who usually base their decisions on report abstracts, legal principles, and commonsense reasoning. Thus, summarizing legal documents is time-consuming and requires excellent human expertise. Moreover, public legal corpora of specific languages are almost unavailable. This paper proposes a transfer learning approach with extractive and abstractive techniques to cope with the lack of labeled legal summarization datasets, namely a low-resource scenario. In particular, we conducted extensive multi- and cross-language experiments. The proposed work outperforms the state-of-the-art results of extractive summarization on the Australian Legal Case Reports dataset and sets a new baseline for abstractive summarization. Finally, syntactic and semantic metrics assessments have been carried out to evaluate the accuracy and the factual consistency of the machine-generated legal summaries

What changed your mind : the roles of dynamic topics and discourse in argumentation process

In our world with full of uncertainty, debates and argumentation contribute to the progress of science and society. Despite of the in- creasing attention to characterize human arguments, most progress made so far focus on the debate outcome, largely ignoring the dynamic patterns in argumentation processes. This paper presents a study that automatically analyzes the key factors in argument persuasiveness, beyond simply predicting who will persuade whom. Specifically, we propose a novel neural model that is able to dynamically track the changes of latent topics and discourse in argumentative conversations, allowing the investigation of their roles in influencing the outcomes of persuasion. Extensive experiments have been conducted on argumentative conversations on both social media and supreme court. The results show that our model outperforms state-of-the-art models in identifying persuasive arguments via explicitly exploring dynamic factors of topic and discourse. We further analyze the effects of topics and discourse on persuasiveness, and find that they are both useful -- topics provide concrete evidence while superior discourse styles may bias participants, especially in social media arguments. In addition, we draw some findings from our empirical results, which will help people better engage in future persuasive conversations

Emotion Embeddings \unicode{x2014} Learning Stable and Homogeneous Abstractions from Heterogeneous Affective Datasets

Human emotion is expressed in many communication modalities and media formats and so their computational study is equally diversified into natural language processing, audio signal analysis, computer vision, etc. Similarly, the large variety of representation formats used in previous research to describe emotions (polarity scales, basic emotion categories, dimensional approaches, appraisal theory, etc.) have led to an ever proliferating diversity of datasets, predictive models, and software tools for emotion analysis. Because of these two distinct types of heterogeneity, at the expressional and representational level, there is a dire need to unify previous work on increasingly diverging data and label types. This article presents such a unifying computational model. We propose a training procedure that learns a shared latent representation for emotions, so-called emotion embeddings, independent of different natural languages, communication modalities, media or representation label formats, and even disparate model architectures. Experiments on a wide range of heterogeneous affective datasets indicate that this approach yields the desired interoperability for the sake of reusability, interpretability and flexibility, without penalizing prediction quality. Code and data are archived under https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7405327 .Comment: 18 pages, 6 figure