Comparative Analysis of LLM-Generated Event Timeline Summarization for Legal Investigations
This paper presents a comparative study evaluating the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in generating timeline summaries from construction delay documents. We assessed seven open-source LLMs and two commercial chatbots (ChatGPT and Claude) on their ability to extract, organize, and summarize delay events from twenty-one carefully curated synthetic snippets of text. The evaluation framework combined automatic metrics (BERTScore and ROUGE scores) with expert human assessment across four dimensions: event description accuracy, date accuracy, event capture completeness, and language quality.Results demonstrate that while commercial solutions, particularly Claude, achieved superior performance, several open-source alternatives showed comparable capabilities. Notably, Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct showed robust performance in event capture and source tracking, while Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct offered efficient processing with balanced performance among smaller models. A critical finding was the widespread challenge in temporal information processing, with only Claude achieving complete accuracy in date extraction and event association. The study's findings suggest that open-source LLMs can serve as practical tools for construction document analysis, although model selection is a critical consideration based on specific accuracy and efficiency requirements, and resource constraints.
Authors
- Adam Dąbrowski (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4258-2435)
- Robert Neary
- Nathaniel Huber-Fliflet
- Fusheng Wei (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5881-5307)
- Jingchao Yang
- Eric N. Olson (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1151-8262)
- Han Qin (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3786-3910)
- Qiang Mao (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9382-6527)
Institutions
- Fujikura (United States) (US)
Publication Details
- Published
- 2024-12-15
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1109/bigdata62323.2024.10826063
- Citations
- 2
- Primary Topic
- Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 4.46