Given the complexity of the judiciary in the US Supreme Court, various procedures, along with various resources, contribute to the court system. However, most research focuses on a limited set of resources, e.g., court opinions or oral arguments, for analyzing a specific perspective in court, e.g., partisanship or voting. To gain a fuller understanding of these perspectives in the legal system of the US Supreme Court, a more comprehensive dataset, connecting different sources in different phases of the court procedure, is needed. To address this gap, we present a multi-sourced dataset for the Supreme Court, comprising court resources from different procedural phases, connecting language documents with extensive metadata. We showcase its utility through a case study on how different court documents reveal the decision direction (conservative vs. liberal) of the cases. We analyze performance differences across three protected attributes, indicating that different court resources encode different biases, and reinforcing that considering various resources provides a fuller picture of the court procedures. We further discuss how our dataset can contribute to future research directions.

Understanding the prevalence and dynamics of justice partisanship and ideology in the US Supreme Court is critical in studying jurisdiction. Most research quantifies partisanship based on voting behavior, and oral arguments in the courtroom — the last essential procedure before the final case outcome — have not been well studied for this purpose. To address this gap, we present a framework for analyzing the language of justices in the courtroom for partisan signals, and study how partisanship in speech aligns with voting patterns. Our results show that the affiliated party of justices can be predicted reliably from their oral contributions. We further show a strong correlation between language partisanship and voting ideology.

Procedural text contains rich anaphoric phenomena, yet has not received much attention in NLP. To fill this gap, we investigate the textual properties of two types of procedural text, recipes and chemical patents, and generalize an anaphora annotation framework developed for the chemical domain for modeling anaphoric phenomena in recipes. We apply this framework to annotate the RecipeRef corpus with both bridging and coreference relations. Through comparison to chemical patents, we show the complexity of anaphora resolution in recipes. We demonstrate empirically that transfer learning from the chemical domain improves resolution of anaphora in recipes, suggesting transferability of general procedural knowledge.

In this paper, we investigate the utility of modern pretrained language models for the evidence grading system in the medical literature based on the ALTA 2021 shared task. We benchmark 1) domain-specific models that are optimized for medical literature and 2) domain-generic models with rich latent discourse representation (i.e. ELECTRA, RoBERTa). Our empirical experiments reveal that these modern pretrained language models suffer from high variance, and the ensemble method can improve the model performance. We found that ELECTRA performs best with an accuracy of 53.6% on the test set, outperforming domain-specific models.1

Chemical patents contain rich coreference and bridging links, which are the target of this research. Specially, we introduce a novel annotation scheme, based on which we create the ChEMU-Ref dataset from reaction description snippets in English-language chemical patents. We propose a neural approach to anaphora resolution, which we show to achieve strong results, especially when jointly trained over coreference and bridging links.