Answer selection in open-domain dialogues aims to select an accurate answer from candidates. The recent success of answer selection models hinges on training with large amounts of labeled data. However, collecting large-scale labeled data is labor-intensive and time-consuming. In this paper, we introduce the predicted intent labels to calibrate answer labels in a self-training paradigm. Specifically, we propose intent-calibrated self-training (ICAST) to improve the quality of pseudo answer labels through the intent-calibrated answer selection paradigm, in which we employ pseudo intent labels to help improve pseudo answer labels. We carry out extensive experiments on two benchmark datasets with open-domain dialogues. The experimental results show that ICAST outperforms baselines consistently with 1%, 5%, and 10% labeled data. Specifically, it improves 2.06% and 1.00% of F1 score on the two datasets, compared with the strongest baseline with only 5% labeled data.

Legal judgment assistants are developing fast due to impressive progress of large language models (LLMs). However, people can hardly trust the results generated by a model without reliable analysis of legal judgement. For legal practitioners, it is common practice to utilize syllogistic reasoning to select and evaluate the arguments of the parties as part of the legal decision-making process. But the development of syllogistic reasoning for legal judgment analysis is hindered by the lack of resources: (1) there is no large-scale syllogistic reasoning dataset for legal judgment analysis, and (2) there is no set of established benchmarks for legal judgment analysis. In this paper, we construct and manually correct a syllogistic reasoning dataset for legal judgment analysis. The dataset contains 11,239 criminal cases which cover 4 criminal elements, 80 charges and 124 articles. We also select a set of large language models as benchmarks, and conduct a in-depth analysis of the capacity of their legal judgment analysis.