Do Language Models Learn about Legal Entity Types during Pretraining?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Language Models (LMs) have proven their ability to acquire diverse linguistic knowledge during the pretraining phase, potentially serving as a valuable source of incidental supervision for downstream tasks. However, there has been limited research conducted on the retrieval of domain-specific knowledge, and specifically legal knowledge. We propose to explore the task of Entity Typing, serving as a proxy for evaluating legal knowledge as an essential aspect of text comprehension, and a foundational task to numerous downstream legal NLP applications. Through systematic evaluation and analysis and two types of prompting (cloze sentences and QA-based templates) and to clarify the nature of these acquired cues, we compare diverse types and lengths of entities both general and domain-specific entities, semantics or syntax signals, and different LM pretraining corpus (generic and legal-oriented) and architectures (encoder BERT-based and decoder-only with Llama2). We show that (1) Llama2 performs well on certain entities and exhibits potential for substantial improvement with optimized prompt templates, (2) law-oriented LMs show inconsistent performance, possibly due to variations in their training corpus, (3) LMs demonstrate the ability to type entities even in the case of multi-token entities, (4) all models struggle with entities belonging to sub-domains of the law (5) Llama2 appears to frequently overlook syntactic cues, a shortcoming less present in BERT-based architectures.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Oct 2023.
Builds on
26 of 39 references.
References · 26
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2019Language Models as Knowledge Bases?cited by 1,936
- 2020Don't Stop Pretraining: Adapt Language Models to Domains and Taskscited by 1,565
- 2021DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharingcited by 1,254
- 2015Aligning Books and Movies: Towards Story-like Visual Explanations by Watching Movies and Reading Bookscited by 1,043
- 2019How Can We Know What Language Models Know?cited by 959
- 2021Learning How to Ask: Querying LMs with Mixtures of Soft Promptscited by 377
- 2023Do Large Language Models Know What They Don't Know?cited by 243
- 2018A Simple Method for Commonsense Reasoningcited by 223
- 2021When Does Pretraining Help? Assessing Self-Supervised Learning for Law and the CaseHOLD Datasetcited by 201
14 more
- 2020X-FACTR: Multilingual Factual Knowledge Retrieval from Pretrained Language Modelscited by 117
- 2021Lawformer: A Pre-trained Language Model for Chinese Legal Long Documentscited by 116
- 2018Ultra-Fine Entity Typingcited by 87
- 2021BERTese: Learning to Speak to BERTcited by 82
- 2023LeXFiles and LegalLAMA: Facilitating English Multinational Legal Language Model Developmentcited by 54
- 2021Ultra-Fine Entity Typing with Weak Supervision from a Masked Language Modelcited by 39
- 2022Prompting Language Models for Linguistic Structurecited by 39
- 2021EntQA: Entity Linking as Question Answeringcited by 34
- 2023Unlocking Practical Applications in Legal Domain: Evaluation of GPT for Zero-Shot Semantic Annotation of Legal Textscited by 33
- 2020TriggerNER: Learning with Entity Triggers as Explanations for Named Entity Recognitioncited by 30
- 2017Generalisation in Named Entity Recognition: A Quantitative Analysiscited by 25
- 2023PromptNER: Prompt Locating and Typing for Named Entity Recognitioncited by 17
- 2021Probing Pre-trained Auto-regressive Language Models for Named Entity Typing and Recognitioncited by 10
- 2023Automated Refugee Case Analysis: An NLP Pipeline for Supporting Legal Practitionerscited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1.
1 paper.