Two-step cascaded textual entailment for legal bar exam question answering

Our legal question answering system combines legal information retrieval and textual entailment, and exploits semantic information using a logic-based representation. We have evaluated our system using the data from the competition on legal information extraction/entailment (COLIEE)-2017. The competition focuses on the legal information processing required to answer yes/no questions from Japanese legal bar exams, and it consists of two phases: ad hoc legal information retrieval (Phase 1), and textual entailment (Phase 2). Phase 1 requires the identification of Japan civil law articles relevant to a legal bar exam query. For this phase, we have used an information retrieval approach using TF-IDF combined with a simple language model. Phase 2 requires a yes/no decision for previously unseen queries, which we approach by comparing the approximate meanings of queries with relevant statutes. Our meaning extraction process uses a selection of features based on a kind of paraphrase, coupled with a condition/conclusion/exception analysis of articles and queries. We also extract and exploit negation patterns from the articles. We construct a logic-based representation as a semantic analysis result, and then classify questions into easy and difficult types by analyzing the logic representation. If a question is in our easy category, we simply obtain the entailment answer from the logic representation; otherwise we use an unsupervised learning method to obtain the entailment answer. Experimental evaluation shows that our result ranked highest in the Phase 2 amongst all COLIEE-2017 competitors.

[1]  Alessandro Moschitti,et al.  Learning textual entailment from examples , 2006 .

[2]  Arti Arya,et al.  A Knowledge Based Approach for Recognizing Textual Entailment for Natural Language Inference using Data Mining , 2010 .

[3]  Anselmo Peñas,et al.  Overview of ResPubliQA 2009: Question Answering Evaluation over European Legislation , 2009, CLEF.

[4]  Yue Zhang,et al.  Recognizing Text Entailment via Syntactic Tree Matching , 2011, NTCIR.

[5]  Natheer K. Gharaibeh,et al.  Development of Yes/No Arabic Question Answering System , 2013, ArXiv.

[6]  Mi-Young Kim,et al.  Legal Question Answering Using Ranking SVM and Syntactic/Semantic Similarity , 2014, JSAI-isAI Workshops.

[7]  Mi-Young Kim,et al.  Resolving Ambiguity in Inter-chunk Dependency Parsing , 2001, NLPRS.

[8]  Stefan Harmeling An Extensible Probabilistic Transformation-based Approach to the Third Recognizing Textual Entailment Challenge , 2007, ACL-PASCAL@ACL.

[9]  Rodney D. Nielsen,et al.  Toward Dependency Path based Entailment , 2006 .

[10]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  A Language Modeling Approach to Information Retrieval , 1998, SIGIR Forum.

[11]  Peter Kulchyski and , 2015 .

[12]  Emiel Krahmer,et al.  Dependency-based paraphrasing for recognizing textual entailment , 2007, ACL-PASCAL@ACL.

[13]  Karen Spärck Jones A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval , 2021, J. Documentation.

[14]  Alexander F. Gelbukh,et al.  NLP for Shallow Question Answering of Legal Documents Using Graphs , 2009, CICLing.

[15]  Randy Goebel,et al.  COLIEE-2018: Evaluation of the Competition on Legal Information Extraction and Entailment , 2018, JSAI-isAI Workshops.

[16]  Malvina Nissim,et al.  The Meaning Factory: Formal Semantics for Recognizing Textual Entailment and Determining Semantic Similarity , 2014, *SEMEVAL.

[17]  Karen Sparck Jones A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval , 1972 .

[18]  Milen Kouylekov,et al.  Semantic Parsing for Textual Entailment , 2015, IWPT.

[19]  Mihai Surdeanu,et al.  The Stanford CoreNLP Natural Language Processing Toolkit , 2014, ACL.