Policy Compliance Detection via Expression Tree Inference
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Policy Compliance Detection (PCD) is a task we encounter when reasoning over texts, e.g. legal frameworks. Previous work to address PCD relies heavily on modeling the task as a special case of Recognizing Textual Entailment. Entailment is applicable to the problem of PCD, however viewing the policy as a single proposition, as opposed to multiple interlinked propositions, yields poor performance and lacks explainability. To address this challenge, more recent proposals for PCD have argued for decomposing policies into expression trees consisting of questions connected with logic operators. Question answering is used to obtain answers to these questions with respect to a scenario. Finally, the expression tree is evaluated in order to arrive at an overall solution. However, this work assumes expression trees are provided by experts, thus limiting its applicability to new policies. In this work, we learn how to infer expression trees automatically from policy texts. We ensure the validity of the inferred trees by introducing constrained decoding using a finite state automaton to ensure the generation of valid trees. We determine through automatic evaluation that 63% of the expression trees generated by our constrained generation model are logically equivalent to gold trees. Human evaluation shows that 88% of trees generated by our model are correct.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 May 2022.
Builds on
14 of 31 references.
References · 14
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,549
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,107
- 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,884
- 2016Language to Logical Form with Neural Attentioncited by 158
- 2020Question and Answer Test-Train Overlap in Open-Domain Question Answering Datasetscited by 137
- 2020How Does NLP Benefit Legal System: A Summary of Legal Artificial Intelligencecited by 128
- 2020Explainable Automated Fact-Checking: A Surveycited by 83
- 2020A Dataset for Statutory Reasoning in Tax Law Entailment and Question Answeringcited by 62
- 2020Generating Fact Checking Briefscited by 50
- 2018Learning To Split and Rephrase From Wikipedia Edit Historycited by 38
- 2017Split and Rephrasecited by 24
- 2021Factoring Statutory Reasoning as Language Understanding Challengescited by 20
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1.
1 paper.