Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Benchmark for Lease Contract Review

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2010.10386 v1 pith:V5MLEI6Y submitted 2020-10-20 cs.IR cs.CL

A Benchmark for Lease Contract Review

classification cs.IR cs.CL
keywords contractentitiesflagsleaselegalreviewbenchmarkdataset
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Extracting entities and other useful information from legal contracts is an important task whose automation can help legal professionals perform contract reviews more efficiently and reduce relevant risks. In this paper, we tackle the problem of detecting two different types of elements that play an important role in a contract review, namely entities and red flags. The latter are terms or sentences that indicate that there is some danger or other potentially problematic situation for one or more of the signing parties. We focus on supporting the review of lease agreements, a contract type that has received little attention in the legal information extraction literature, and we define the types of entities and red flags needed for that task. We release a new benchmark dataset of 179 lease agreement documents that we have manually annotated with the entities and red flags they contain, and which can be used to train and test relevant extraction algorithms. Finally, we release a new language model, called ALeaseBERT, pre-trained on this dataset and fine-tuned for the detection of the aforementioned elements, providing a baseline for further research

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. LLMs for LLMs: A Structured Prompting Methodology for Long Legal Documents

    cs.AI 2025-09 reject novelty 5.0

    On CUAD legal contracts, a prompt-engineered QWEN-2 pipeline with chunking and two answer-selection heuristics reportedly outperforms the fine-tuned DeBERTa-large baseline by about 9%, reaching claimed state-of-the-ar...