Named Entity Recognition in the Legal Domain using a Pointer Generator Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Named Entity Recognition (NER) is the task of identifying and classifying named entities in unstructured text. In the legal domain, named entities of interest may include the case parties, judges, names of courts, case numbers, references to laws etc. We study the problem of legal NER with noisy text extracted from PDF files of filed court cases from US courts. The "gold standard" training data for NER systems provide annotation for each token of the text with the corresponding entity or non-entity label. We work with only partially complete training data, which differ from the gold standard NER data in that the exact location of the entities in the text is unknown and the entities may contain typos and/or OCR mistakes. To overcome the challenges of our noisy training data, e.g. text extraction errors and/or typos and unknown label indices, we formulate the NER task as a text-to-text sequence generation task and train a pointer generator network to generate the entities in the document rather than label them. We show that the pointer generator can be effective for NER in the absence of gold standard data and outperforms the common NER neural network architectures in long legal documents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".