Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2009.04485

Aspect Classification for Legal Depositions

Saurabh Chakravarty·Satvik Chekuri·Maanav Mehrotra·Edward A. Fox
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Attorneys and others have a strong interest in having a digital library with suitable services (e.g., summarizing, searching, and browsing) to help them work with large corpora of legal depositions. Their needs often involve understanding the semantics of such documents. That depends in part on the role of the deponent, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, law enforcement personnel, expert, etc. In the case of tort litigation associated with property and casualty insurance claims, such as relating to an injury, it is important to know not only about liability, but also about events, accidents, physical conditions, and treatments. We hypothesize that a legal deposition consists of various aspects that are discussed as part of the deponent testimony. Accordingly, we developed an ontology of aspects in a legal deposition for accident and injury cases. Using that, we have developed a classifier that can identify portions of text for each of the aspects of interest. Doing so was complicated by the peculiarities of this genre, e.g., that deposition transcripts generally consist of data in the form of question-answer (QA) pairs. Accordingly, our automated system starts with pre-processing, and then transforms the QA pairs into a canonical form made up of declarative sentences. Classifying the declarative sentences that are generated, according to the aspect, can then help with downstream tasks such as summarization, segmentation, question-answering, and information retrieval. Our methods have achieved a classification F1 score of 0.83. Having the aspects classified with a good accuracy will help in choosing QA pairs that can be used as candidate summary sentences, and to generate an informative summary for legal professionals or insurance claim agents. Our methodology could be extended to legal depositions of other kinds, and to aid services like searching.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.IRcs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Saurabh Chakravarty, Satvik Chekuri, Maanav Mehrotra, Edward A. Fox. 2020-09-09. Aspect Classification for Legal Depositions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.04485

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MultiViewDx: Evidence-Linked Multi-View Clinical Diagnosis

Medical multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can perform well on existing medical visual question answering (MedVQA) benchmarks, but their training data often does not match clinical diagnosis. Most supervision is organized around isolated images or short QA pairs, leaving two structures weakly specified: how evidence leads to a decision, and how views, series, modalities, and patient context from the same case are linked. We introduce MultiViewDx, a partly physician-validated multimodal instruction dataset for evidence-linked multi-view medical imaging diagnosis. MultiViewDx uses the clinical case as the supervision unit. It links imaging studies with patient context, normalizes heterogeneous reports into an evidence-linked workflow (evidence -> findings -> differential discussion -> diagnosis), and uses a unified image-text retriever to constrain instruction synthesis to source-supported evidence. It covers X-ray, CT, MRI, ultrasound, histopathology, and other clinical visual sources. We fine-tune MultiViewDx-8B-AN and evaluate it on both existing MedVQA benchmarks and real-world case-based diagnostic reasoning. Across four MedVQA benchmarks, it achieves the best average accuracy among compared systems (79.0%), outperforming HuatuoGPT-Vision-34B (66.7%) and Claude3-Opus (55.7%). Beyond MedVQA, on JAMA Clinical Challenge cases, it receives the strongest overall rating under a physician-designed rubric for key clinical points, diagnostic inference, and evidence grounding. Controlled ablations and clinician evaluation show that both case-level multi-view organization and evidence-linked reasoning targets contribute to the gain.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Foundations of Large Language Models

This is a book about large language models. As indicated by the title, it primarily focuses on foundational concepts rather than comprehensive coverage of all cutting-edge technologies. The book is structured into six main chapters, each exploring a key area: pre-training, generative models, prompting, alignment, inference, and reasoning. It is intended for college students, professionals, and practitioners in natural language processing and related fields, and can serve as a reference for anyone interested in large language models.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Interactive In-Meeting Speaker Correction with Human Feedback

Most automatic speech processing systems operate in ``open loop'' mode without user feedback about who said what, yet human-in-the-loop workflows can potentially enable higher accuracy. We propose an LLM-assisted in-meeting speaker correction system that lets users fix speaker attribution errors through brief corrective feedback. After performing streaming ASR and diarization, the system presents concise LLM-generated summaries to help users identify important speaker errors, and it incorporates user feedback by updating the speaker-attributed transcript and adding online speaker enrollments. To make this workflow effective despite errors in speech processing, LLM analysis, and user feedback, we developed several mechanisms to identify the intended correction more precisely. Further, we built an LLM-driven user feedback simulation to evaluate the workflow reprodubilty and at scale. Applied to the AMI headset test set, our system substantially reduces the DER from a streaming baseline (Google ASR + ECAPA) by 31.99% and speaker substitution error by 52.68%. Results of a pilot usability study suggest several avenues to improve the user experience.

cs.CL↗