rhetorical-roles-eval
SemEval 2023 Task 6: LegalEval - Understanding Legal Texts — Modi et al. (2023) (arXiv:2304.09548, 2023)
What this evaluates
Probes a model's ability to segment long, unstructured legal documents into semantically coherent units and assign each sentence a specific rhetorical role label (e.g., Facts, Ratio, Arguments). This capability is fundamental for downstream legal AI applications like summarization and precedent search.
Datasets
- LegalEval RR Dataset — total ?; splits: test (-1)
Metrics
weighted F1 score(primary) — range: [0, 1]- Weighted average of per-class F1 scores, where weights correspond to the support (number of true instances) for each class.
Input / output format
Input: A legal judgment document represented as a sequence of sentences.
Output: A sequence of rhetorical role labels, one for each input sentence.
Scoring recipe
def compute_weighted_f1(predictions, gold, classes):
scores = []
for cls in classes:
tp = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, gold) if p == cls and g == cls)
fp = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, gold) if p == cls and g != cls)
fn = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, gold) if p != cls and g == cls)
prec = tp / (tp + fp) if (tp + fp) > 0 else 0
rec = tp / (tp + fn) if (tp + fn) > 0 else 0
f1 = 2 * prec * rec / (prec + rec) if (prec + rec) > 0 else 0
scores.append(f1 * sum(1 for g in gold if g == cls))
return sum(scores) / len(gold)
Common pitfalls
- Class imbalance is significant in legal documents, making unweighted F1 misleading.
- Sentence boundary detection errors in raw text can misalign predictions with gold labels.
Evidence (verbatim from paper)
The rhetorical roles task (a multiclass prediction problem) is evaluated using a weighted F1 score based on the test data.
Citation
@misc{modi2023legaleval,
title={SemEval 2023 Task 6: LegalEval - Understanding Legal Texts},
author={Modi et al. (2023)},
year={2023},
note={arXiv:2304.09548}
}
- arXiv: 2304.09548